Using Social Media to Organize Protests: Does Shutting Down Cell Phone Service Violate First Amendment Free Speech Rights?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Son Trinh
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Cell Phone ◽  
Phone Service ◽  
Free Speech Rights

Lewd, Vulgar, Plainly-Offensive, and Obscene Speech

2015 ◽  
pp. 84-96
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
School District ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Student Speech ◽  
Free Speech Rights ◽  
Speech Clause

This chapter focuses on the Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) case – the United States Supreme Court's second review of students' speech rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It discusses the test created in the case for determining when schools can regulate students' speech. This test, referred to as the Bethel test or the Fraser test authorizes schools to censor students' speech if the speech is vulgar, lewd, plainly offensive or obscene. The chapter also discusses the Supreme Court's decision on the scope of students' free speech rights. The ultimate goal of the chapter is to analyze the Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser case in order to determine if it empowers schools to censor off-campus student speech.

scholarly journals Can Speech by FDA-Regulated Firms Ever Be Noncommercial?

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 388-421
Author(s):  
Nathan Cortez
Keyword(s):  
Drug Administration ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Regulatory Scheme ◽  
Commercial Speech ◽  
Federal Food ◽  
Regulated Firms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Regulated Firm ◽  
Free Speech Rights

For over a century, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) and its precursors have regulated what companies say about their products. The FDA itself notes that the regulatory scheme imposed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act “depends on the use of words” and that its requirements can “explicitly limit speech.” For seventy years, the FDA had little reason to worry about First Amendment constraints. But since 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed its longstanding position that the First Amendment does not protect commercial speech, the Agency has had to confront–perhaps more than any other federal agency–the free speech rights of regulated firms.But how far do those rights extend, and what room do they leave for regulators like the FDA? The answer largely depends on another question: Is the speech commercial or noncommercial? The distinction is paramount. If speech by a regulated firm is commercial, then the FDA can ensure that it is not false or misleading; the Agency can require or compel certain speech; it can impose prior restraints; and it can even limit truthful speech, all within certain parameters.

Teachers, School Boards, and the Curriculum: Who Is in Control?

1999 ◽  
Vol 83 (610) ◽  
pp. 22-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles J. Russo ◽  
Floyd G. Delon
Keyword(s):  
Academic Freedom ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
School Boards ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Curriculum Content ◽  
Free Speech Rights

Disagreements over the First Amendment academic freedom/free speech rights of teachers in curricular contexts are once again receiving judicial attention. Two recent federal cases have upheld the longstanding rule that school boards have the authority to control curriculum content in disagreements over subject matter and language that teachers can permit students to use.

scholarly journals Academic Freedom in the Heartland: Rights Consciousness and the United States Supreme Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 208
Author(s):  
Darren Botello-Samson
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Conflict ◽  
Media Policy ◽  
Social Media Policy ◽  
Board Of Regents ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
Free Speech Rights

In late 2013, the Kansas Board of Regents proposed a social media policy, a policy which the board eventually unanimously approved. The policy authorized “the chief executive officer of a state university…to suspend, dismiss or terminate from employment any faculty or staff member who makes improper use of social media.” A strong and unified condemnation of the policy followed, led primarily by the faculty of those institutions and their various faculty governance organizations. This conflict between the free speech rights of academics and the governing authority of government and university administrations in the state of Kansas was neither the first nor last such conflict; U.S. courts had already established a doctrine over the free speech rights of public employees. Therefore, this conflict presents an opportunity to observe how the judicial establishment and definition of rights affects subsequent political conflict and discourse. The conflict over the social media policy adopted by the Kansas Board of Regents raises questions of whether the established judicial articulations of free speech in an academic setting shaped the efforts of Kansas faculty in opposition to this policy and the crafting of the policy itself.

scholarly journals Is the First Amendment Obsolete?

2018 ◽  
pp. 547
Author(s):  
Tim Wu
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Internet ◽  
New Techniques ◽  
The Core ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Speech Control

The First Amendment was brought to life in a period, the twentieth century, when the political speech environment was markedly different than today’s. With respect to any given issue, speech was scarce and limited to a few newspapers, pamphlets or magazines. The law was embedded, therefore, with the presumption that the greatest threat to free speech was direct punishment of speakers by government. Today, in the internet and social media age, it is no longer speech that is scarce—rather, it is the attention of listeners. And those who seek to control speech use new methods that rely on the weaponization of speech itself, such as the deployment of “troll armies,” the fabrication of news, or “flooding” tactics. This Essay identifies the core assumptions that proceeded from the founding era of First Amendment jurisprudence, argues that many of those assumptions no longer hold, and details the new techniques of speech control that are used by governmental and nongovernmental actors to censor and degrade speech. It concludes by arguing that protection of free speech may now depend on law enforcement recognizing its role in the protection of the American speech environment.

Their Stories

2015 ◽  
pp. 208-302
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Online Forum ◽  
Student Speech ◽  
School Officials ◽  
Students First ◽  
Online Setting ◽  
Free Speech Rights

This chapter presents the stories of students censored by their schools for speaking in an off-campus online forum. It discusses online off-campus student speech in two categories: (a) speech directed at or against school officials or the school; and (b) speech directed at or against students. The chapter examines and analyzes the various legal precedents governing students' First Amendment speech rights under each of these categories. The analysis highlights the lack of clarity and the unsettled nature of the jurisprudence governing students' free speech rights in an off-campus online setting.

THE ENFORCEMENT OF VIRTUE

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (02) ◽  
pp. 182-197
Author(s):  
F. H. Buckley
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
American Character ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Campaign Finance Laws ◽  
Free Speech Rights ◽  
The U.S

Abstract:Corruption of public officials is the silent killer of the U.S. economy, and we should reflect carefully on how it might be reined in. That’s the thought behind campaign finance laws. But broad grants of discretion to authorities, which might work in New Zealand, are more likely to be abused in low-trust America, and campaign finance laws are one example of this. First Amendment free speech rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, represent its reflection on the American character and the possibility of abuse when Congress tries to restrict political speech. So conservatives are apt to think, and not entirely without reason.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document