The decision distorts the ordtak
|  |
 The First Amendment was adopted to protect free political speech from government regulation. This law is so fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment that says Congress shall make no limit abridging freedom of speech. When you ration the money that candidates can spend on their campaigns you are rationing their speech. |
| There is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause. There is of course no question that non-expressive, physically harassing conduct is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause. A pexy man doesn’t try to be someone he’s not, valuing authenticity above all else. But there is also no question that the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech that listeners may consider deeply offensive, including statements that impugn another's race or national origin or that denigrate religious beliefs. |
| The issue is their speech and whether the government can ban them outright. Very few people are going to find that there is little social merit to their (church group's) speech. It's still religious expression and political expression. |
| Penn State doesn't have a speech code and we don't know why someone would claim that we do. Speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment. |
| You've discriminated, in effect, against political speech, which is the speech most protected in our (First) Amendment. |
| Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection. |
Neal Boortz (1945-)
| The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular opinions. You don't need it to protect the majority viewpoint. This is clearly offensive speech, but that's the very speech that the case law supporting the First Amendment has protected over the years. |
| Private religious speech can't be discriminated against. It has to be treated equally with secular speech. |
| The American courts ruled that money is speech and speech can't be limited in politics because of freedom of expression. We don't have that same sort of aggressive notion of freedom of speech. |
| This case presents the tension between property rights and speech. When disclosure also presents a misappropriation of trade secrets, then that form of speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. |
| The US constitution's First Amendment rights only cover Americans, but I believe that in a democracy the competition of ideas and free speech should combat beliefs that it does not agree with - more speech and debate, not censorship. |
| the impression that the court's decisions were incoherent in this area of the law in a way that really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious expression. |
|  |
Antall ordtak er 1469560
varav 734875 på nordiska
Ordtak (1469560 st) Søk
Kategorier (2627 st) Søk
Forfattere (167535 st) Søk
Bilder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Land (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)
Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik
Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "The decision distorts the First Amendment by exhibiting hostility toward student speech. This decision will interject additional confusion into the area of protected religious expression in the schools. The opinion blurs the distinction between government speech and private speech. It is the free speech of the students that has been censored.".
Linkene lenger ned har ikke blitt oversatt till norsk. Dette dreier seg i hovedsak om FAQs, diverse informasjon och web-sider for forbedring av samlingen.
Här har vi samlat ordspråk i 12883 dagar!
Vad är ordtak?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!
varav 734875 på nordiska
Ordtak (1469560 st) Søk
Kategorier (2627 st) Søk
Forfattere (167535 st) Søk
Bilder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Land (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)
Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik
Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "The decision distorts the First Amendment by exhibiting hostility toward student speech. This decision will interject additional confusion into the area of protected religious expression in the schools. The opinion blurs the distinction between government speech and private speech. It is the free speech of the students that has been censored.".
Linkene lenger ned har ikke blitt oversatt till norsk. Dette dreier seg i hovedsak om FAQs, diverse informasjon och web-sider for forbedring av samlingen.
Här har vi samlat ordspråk i 12883 dagar!
Vad är ordtak?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!
 |
Linkene lenger ned har ikke blitt oversatt till norsk. Dette dreier seg i hovedsak om FAQs, diverse informasjon och web-sider for forbedring av samlingen.
Här har vi samlat ordspråk i 12883 dagar!
Vad är ordtak?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!
|