scholarly journals Cross Burning as Hate Speech Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Wilson R. Huhn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution

“[T]his most unnecessary, unjust, and disgraceful war”

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 82-103
Author(s):  
Juhani Rudanko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
War Of 1812 ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Sedition Act ◽  
The Face ◽  
Federalist Party

This article focuses on face-threatening attacks on the Madison Administration during the War of 1812. The discussion is framed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with the language of the Amendment protecting freedom of speech, and also by the Sedition Act of 1798, which, if it had been made permanent, would have seriously curtailed freedom of speech. The War of 1812 was intensely unpopular among members of the Federalist Party, and their newspapers did not shy away from criticising it. This article investigates writings published in the Boston Gazette and the Connecticut Mirror during the war. It is shown that the criticism took different forms, ranging from accusing President Madison of “untruths” to painting a picture of what was claimed to be the unmitigated hopelessness of his position, both nationally and internationally, and that the criticism also included harsh personal attacks on his character and motives. It is suggested that some of the attacks may be characterised as exhibiting aggravated impoliteness. The article also considers President Madison’s attitude in the face of the attacks.

Remembering Lenny Bruce

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-217
Author(s):  
Charles Marowitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Fourth Amendment ◽  
Senior Citizen ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution

On 13 October 2012, Lenny Bruce, had he not accidentally overdosed on narcotics (or committed suicide – the jury is still out on that one), would be eighty-seven years old. It is, of course, a thoroughly incredible notion – like an octogenarian Mozart, a super annuated Janis Joplin, or James Dean signing up for a senior citizen pension. Poètes maudits, doomed rock icons, and self-destructive superstars are supposed to die young. Their myth demands it, and we wouldn't have it any other way.Bruce at forty-one, perched on a toilet bowl with a spike in his right arm and his last typed words (‘conspiracy to interfere with the Fourth Amendment const—’) in the barrel of his still humming electric typewriter, died characteristically. He was always associated with toilet humour and throughout the last decade of his life ex hausted himself trying to demonstrate that the United States Constitution protected the free speech for which one court after another mercilessly prosecuted him. (The Fourth Amendment, incidentally, protects citizens from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ and, along with the state's First Amendment violations, was as much responsible for his downfall as the cocaine and morphine.)

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-175
Author(s):  
Anthony Davidson Gray
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
High Court ◽  
Australian Case ◽  
American Case

This article suggests that the Australian High Court might usefully utilize more of the First Amendment jurisprudence than it has done so to date. After a succinct summary of the Australian implied freedom and First Amendment case law, it documents cases in which the Australian High Court has either utilised, or not utilised, First Amendment case law. It suggests specific instances in which the Australian case law might utilize some of the American doctrine, and responds to suggestions that the American case law is not applicable to the Australian constitutional context.

Words, Wounds, and Relationships: Why Social Ties Matter to Free Speech in High-Conflict Protests

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-258
Author(s):  
P. Brooks Fuller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Social Ties ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Conflict ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
High Conflict ◽  
Abortion Clinic ◽  
Analytical Frameworks

Under settled First Amendment doctrine, true threats and incitement to violence fall clearly outside the protection of the United States Constitution. However, the line between violent speech and protected political hyperbole is exceedingly blurry, especially in high-conflict protest environments. This study complements doctrinal analysis with an ethnographic field study of abortion clinic protests in the Southern United States to test assumptions about speech, harm, and political discourse. It recommends that courts modify the analytical frameworks for true threats and incitement to better capture the layers of social and historical context that create social and rhetorical meaning amid political conflict.

Alcohol Content Labeling and Advertising: The Adolph Coors Company Lawsuit

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Martin ◽  
K. Preston Oade ◽  
Ted D. Nirenberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
District Court ◽  
Federal Bureau ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Alcohol Content ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Law

Federal law prohibits brewers from disclosing information about the alcohol content of malt beverages on product labels or in advertising. In 1987, the Adolph Coors Company filed suit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, arguing that this law is an invalid suppression of speech violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Coors won the case in U.S. District Court and the defendants have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. A hearing and decision on the appeal is pending. This article summarizes the current federal law, describes the Coors case challenging the law, and discusses legal and practical issues concerning alcohol content labeling and advertising for malt beverages.

scholarly journals Ethical Principles on the Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Developed and Developing Countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Alim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an essential part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, obstructing the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering peoples assembling rights in a peaceful manner or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental remedy of grievances. The guarantees of this Bill of Rights were subject to the limitation imposed by the free speech and press provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constitution as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court and other courts. The United States and India are the largest democratic country and almost have similar free speech provisions in their Constitutions. This Article is intended to present the free speech provisions of the American and Indian Constitution as a basic fundamental right of human being. It is also to be examined that what is the role of Supreme Court in interpreting the freedom of speech and expression provisions. The study also tries to incorporate the comparison between the looms of both countries as far as freedom of speech is disturbed.

scholarly journals Erecting a Virtual Schoolhouse Gate

2019 ◽  
pp. 73-89
Author(s):  
Maryam Ahranjani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Interest In Technology

The very first amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech. While the Supreme Court held in 1969 that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” since then the Court has limited students' freedom of speech, stopping short of considering the boundaries of off-campus, online speech. Lower court holdings vary, meaning that a student engaging in certain online speech may not be punished at all in one state but would face harsh criminal punishments in another. The lack of a uniform standard leads to dangerously inconsistent punishments and poses the ultimate threat to constitutional knowledge and citizenship exercise: chilling of speech. Recent interest in technology-related cases and the presence of a new justice may reverse the Court's prior unwillingness to address this issue. In the meantime, this chapter argues that school districts should erect a virtual schoolhouse gate by implementing a uniform standard.

scholarly journals Role of Media of Pakistan in "Freedom of Speech": A Survey of Lahore District

2020 ◽  
Vol III (I) ◽  
pp. 39-51
Author(s):  
Rida Saeed
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Status ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Government ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Basic Rights

A researcher wants to study the role of media of Pakistan in freedom of speech of Lahore district. Each individual has some inborn basic rights, which he and she enjoys no matter, where, he and she lives or what his and her material or social status is, the ability to freedom speech and expression is one of those rights. As said by Newseum, in 1997 that "Freedom of speech is guaranteed, and protected by the first amendment, of the United-States constitution". Connotations, of the freedom of speech have a varied, in different eras of history. There are parts of bills of rights in 1st amendment forbids national, government from restricting freedom of expression, in this article the author looks into the phenomenon of 'Freedom of Speech' within Lahore.

scholarly journals If Words Could Kill: Can the Government Regulate Any Online Speech?

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Pontzer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Internet Media ◽  
Gradual Evolution ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Government

From the inception of American jurisprudence, an individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution 1 has been given some of the strongest protection available.2 The most celebrated legal minds in American history have consistently advocated the necessity of an open and honest exchange of ideas as fundamental to democratic society,3 even when the ideas expressed may be unpopular or of little value.4 Nonetheless, it is equally well-established that not all speech is protected, particularly where the speech in question poses a threat to public order.5 Although First Amendment law continues to evolve, the media available to Americans wishing to express their ideas seem to be evolving exponentially faster, particularly in the forum provided by the Internet.6 Indeed, the vast expansion and availability of Internet media seem to continually outstrip the much more gradual evolution of the law, not only in the United States but worldwide.

Competing Theories of Religion and Law in the Supreme Court of the United States: An Hasidic Case

Numen ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-212
Author(s):  
Winnifred Fallers Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Positive Contribution ◽  
Religion And Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Theories Of Religion ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractThe meaning and application of the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are currently a matter of intense and increasingly intractable public debate. The academic study of religion can make a positive contribution to this debate by inviting its participants into a conversation about human religion that is already struggling with problems of definition and of language and that wishes to affirm the existence and importance of human religion without establishing a particular definition of religion, without unconsciously theologizing. A close examination of the legal debate can, in turn, serve the purposes of scholars of religion. The politically charged context of First Amendment jurisprudence provides an interesting laboratory in which to test theories of religion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document