Do Patents Abridge the First Amendment Guarantee of Free Speech?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Pechette
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech

Where to limit the freedom of speech? Analysis in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the fighting words doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256
Author(s):  
Karolina Palka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Socialist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Socialist Party Of America ◽  
The Right

This article is about the limits of the right to free speech. The first section provides a brief introduction to this topic, primarily in the context of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second section describes the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which was fundamental to the topic of this paper because the United States Supreme Court created the so-called "fighting words" doctrine based on it. In the next two sections, two court cases are presented that perfectly demonstrate the limits of the right to free speech in the United States: Snyder v. Phelps and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. The fifth part shows the right to freedom of speech in the context of Polish civil, criminal, and constitutional law, as well as acts of international law binding on Poland. The last part is a short summary.

The First Amendment’s Impact on Bloggers

2012 ◽  
pp. 216-230
Author(s):  
Joshua Azriel
Keyword(s):  
Work Environment ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Privacy Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Invasion Of Privacy ◽  
After Hours ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
Legal Consequences

This chapter examines the First Amendment’s challenges to bloggers in the United States and highlights the potential legal consequences for victimizing someone online. While the First Amendment protects an overall right to free speech, there are certain boundaries to this right. Federal Internet-related speech laws, libel, invasion of privacy, copyright, trademark, and others are analyzed within the context of blogging. The author discusses the potential legal consequences to blogging at work or after hours and how personal blogs can negatively impact the work environment. Several Supreme Court cases are discussed to assist bloggers in understanding the scope of contemporary Internet free speech laws. An analysis of U.S. federal laws restricting online speech and an overview of the following areas of speech law are provided: libel, invasion of privacy, protection for confidential sources, copyright, trademark, true threats, and obscenity.

Heckler’s Veto

2020 ◽  
pp. 220-232
Author(s):  
Rodney A. Smolla
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
City Manager ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
The Right ◽  
The City

This chapter draws attention to Craig Brown and Lisa Robertson, who were the principal in-house lawyers providing legal counsel to the city manager and council of Charlottesville. It investigates Brown and Robertson's view that any attempt at outright cancellation of the Unite the Right rally would be immediately overturned by courts as a violation of the First Amendment. It also explains “heckler's veto” as a free speech jurisprudence that raises the rhetoric of defiance and confrontation that could help counterprotesters to shut down the rally. The chapter discusses the First Amendment in modern times that generally stands against acceding to the power of heckling counterprotesters in order to cease messages with which they disagree. It clarifies that when hecklers and protesters gather to express their disagreement with a speaker's message, the rights of that speaker are in tension.

An Inconsistent Jurisprudence: The Doctrinal Spectrum

2020 ◽  
pp. 93-136
Author(s):  
Edward A. Jr. Purcell
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence ◽  
The U.S

This chapter explores Justice Antonin Scalia’s constitutional jurisprudence across the broad range of issues he addressed. The chapter shows that he contradicted his originalist jurisprudence in interpreting the First Amendment (both its free speech and religion clauses) as well as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Amendments, and that he did the same in construing a variety of other constitutional doctrines including those involving standing, the treaty power, affirmative action, the Commerce Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s own appellate jurisdiction. The chapter argues that he frequently twisted, ignored, and abandoned his jurisprudential principles and methodologies he proclaimed and that the principal consistency his decisions and opinions reveal was his commitment to his own ideological goals and values.

The First Amendment During the Trump Era and Beyond

2021 ◽  
pp. 185-232
Author(s):  
Carlos A. Ball
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Real Possibility ◽  
The Real ◽  
Repeated Use

This chapter explores the ways in which some progressives, in the years leading up to Trump’s election, had grown skeptical of expansive First Amendment protections, viewing them as impediments to the pursuit of equality objectives. Although some of that skepticism is understandable, the chapter details the multiple ways in which free speech and free press protections helped curtail some of Trump’s autocratic policies and practices. In doing so, the chapter argues that progressives, going forward, should not allow what it calls “First Amendment skepticism” to grow to the point that it undermines the amendment’s ability to shield democratic processes, dissenters, and vulnerable groups from future autocratic government officials in the Trump mold. The chapter ends with an exploration of future hate speech regulations. While it would be understandable for progressives, after Trump’s repeated use of hate speech, to call for greater regulations of such speech, the chapter urges progressives to be cautious in this area because of the real possibility that the regulations will be used by future government officials in the Trump mold to target and discriminate against both progressive viewpoints and racial and religious minorities.

Advocacy of Illegal Drug Use

2015 ◽  
pp. 108-121
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Illegal Drug ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Student Speech ◽  
Illegal Drug Use ◽  
Speech Clause

This chapter examines the Morse v. Frederick (2007) case – the most recent United States Supreme Court decision about students' right to free speech under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It discusses the test created in the case for determining the extent of school-censorship authority over student speech. This test, known as the Morse test, allows schools to censor student speech if the speech advocates illegal drug use. The ultimate goal of the chapter is to analyze the Morse v. Frederick case in order to determine if it gives schools any authority to censor students' off-campus speech.

School-Sponsored Speech

2015 ◽  
pp. 97-107
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Student Speech ◽  
Speech Clause

This chapter examines the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) case – the United States Supreme Court's third review of students' speech rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It discusses the test created in the case for analyzing when schools can regulate students' speech. This test, referred to as the Hazelwood test (also known as the Kuhlmeier test) authorizes schools to censor school-sponsored student speech. The chapter discusses the Supreme Court's approach to student speech in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) case. The ultimate goal of the chapter is to analyze the case in order to determine if it authorizes schools to censor students' speech while they are outside the schoolhouse gate.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document