Free speech rights outweigh restrictions on promoting drugs off label, court rules

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 345 (dec06 3) ◽  
pp. e8324-e8324 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Roehr
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Free Speech Rights

The Structure of a Free Speech Right

2021 ◽  
pp. 212-230
Author(s):  
Stephen Gardbaum
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Structural Elements ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Free Speech Rights

This chapter describes the structural elements or components of a free speech right. The nature and extent of a free speech right depends upon a number of legal components. The first is the legal source of the right (in common law, statute, or a constitution) and the force of the right having regard to how it is enforced, and whether and how it can be superseded. The second component is the ‘subject’ of free speech rights, or who are the rights-holders: citizens, natural or legal persons. The third is the ‘scope’ of a free speech right, while the fourth is the kind of obligation it imposes on others: a negative prohibition or a positive obligation. The fifth component is the ‘object’ of a free speech right: who is bound to respect a right of freedom of expression and against whom the right may be asserted. Finally, there is the ‘limitation’ of a free speech right.

scholarly journals Scholarship Suppression: Theoretical Perspectives and Emerging Trends

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Stevens ◽  
Lee Jussim ◽  
Nathan Honeycutt
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Real World ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Sociological Analysis ◽  
The Past ◽  
Academic Scholarship ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Emerging Trends ◽  
Free Speech Rights

This paper explores the suppression of ideas within academic scholarship by academics, either by self-suppression or because of the efforts of other academics. Legal, moral, and social issues distinguishing freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and academic freedom are reviewed. How these freedoms and protections can come into tension is then explored by a sociological analysis of denunciation mobs who exercise their legal free speech rights to call for punishing scholars who express ideas they disapprove of and condemn. When successful, these efforts, which constitute legally protected speech, will suppress certain ideas. Real-world examples over the past five years of academics who have been sanctioned or terminated for scholarship targeted by a denunciation mob are then explored.

Protection of Minors from Harmful Internet Content

2008 ◽  
pp. 3375-3386
Author(s):  
Geoffrey A. Sandy
Keyword(s):  
Social Issue ◽  
North America ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Limited Success ◽  
Australian Experience ◽  
Free Speech Rights

The Internet provides access to speech both conventional and unconventional. Some speech is considered harmful to minors. This chapter discusses the important social issue of how to best protect minors from such speech without violating the free speech rights of adults. It examines the Australian experience, one that has relevance to other relatively open societies like those found in North America and Europe. It concludes that the Australian regulatory framework has limited success in protecting minors from harmful Internet content and it risks compromising the free rights of adults.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document