query: what type of commercial speech is not protected by the 1st amendment

pos: United States free speech exceptions While there is no complete exception, legal advocates recognize it as having "diminished protection". For example, false advertising can be punished and misleading advertising may be prohibited. Commercial advertising may be restricted in ways that other speech can't if a "substantial" governmental interest is advanced, and that restriction supports that interest as well as not being overly broad. This doctrine of limited protection for advertisements is due to a balancing inherent in the policy explanations for the rule, namely that other types of speech (for example, political) are much more important. The government is not permitted to fire an employee

neg: First Amendment to the United States Constitution Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Owen Roberts explained: In "Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council" (1976), the Court overruled "Valentine" and ruled that commercial speech was entitled to First Amendment protection: In "Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association" (1978), the Court ruled that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment as much as other types of speech: In "Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission" (1980), the Court clarified what analysis was required before the government could justify regulating commercial speech: Six years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, applying the "Central

neg: Commercial speech to determine whether commercial speech regulation violates the First Amendment: Until the 1976 Supreme Court case "Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council", commercial speech in the United States was viewed as an "unprotected" category of speech beyond the pale of First Amendment protection. Indeed, the idea of commercial speech was first introduced by the Supreme Court when it upheld "Valentine v. Chrestensen" in 1942, which ruled that commercial speech in public is not constitutionally protected. In upholding the regulation, the Supreme Court said, "We are...clear that the Constitution imposes...no restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising".

neg: Meiklejohnian absolutism Meiklejohnian absolutism Meiklejohnian absolutism is the belief espoused by Alexander Meiklejohn, that the purpose of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is to continue to keep the electorate informed, thereby creating self-governance. Therefore, all speech, even criticizing the established government, is healthy to the life of democracy. In essence, this means that free speech must be protected not for those speaking, but for those who should hear what they are saying. This term argues that the burden of proof is on the side of those opposing a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment, such as in the "clear

neg: Meiklejohnian absolutism and present danger" argument. Meiklejohnian absolutism Meiklejohnian absolutism is the belief espoused by Alexander Meiklejohn, that the purpose of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is to continue to keep the electorate informed, thereby creating self-governance. Therefore, all speech, even criticizing the established government, is healthy to the life of democracy. In essence, this means that free speech must be protected not for those speaking, but for those who should hear what they are saying. This term argues that the burden of proof is on the side of those opposing a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment, such

neg: Carey v. Population Services International such speech is protected by Amendment I AND may not be prohibited because it concerns subjects offending the public’s sensibilities. Future cases dealing with the prohibition of advertising suppressing commercial speech freedoms were: a) "Reno v. ACLU" 521 U.S. 844 (1997) which challenged the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which criminalized the constitutionally-protected indecent speech as well as unprotected obscene speech. The court held that the law violated Amendment I by restricting the freedom of speech. b) "Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission" 447 U.S. 557 (1980) which challenged a public service commission’s regulation banning promotional

neg: Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. accepted the Florida Bar's request that it review the case. Advertising by lawyers is commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows states to ban commercial speech that is false or misleading. If the speech is not false or misleading, then a state may only regulate or ban the speech if it asserts a substantial interest in support of its regulation, demonstrates that the restriction directly and materially advances that interest, and shows that the regulation is narrowly drawn. The state, through the Florida Bar, asserted that it has a "substantial interest in protecting the privacy and

neg: Sable Communications of California v. FCC restricted, carefully protecting the rights of adults to receive protected speech, even if that protected speech is indecent. Sable Communications of California v. FCC Sable Communications of California v. Federal Communications Commission, 492 U.S. 115 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the definition of "indecent material" and whether it is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court invalidated part of a federal law that prohibited "dial-a-porn" telephone messaging services by making it a crime to transmit commercial telephone messages that were either "obscene" or "indecent". The often tough question of what it

neg: United States free speech exceptions United States free speech exceptions Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, exceptions have been made for speech that violates the legal rights of others, or because of compelling governmental interests. Examples of these categories include incitement, true threats, and fighting words. Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection. Along with communicative restrictions,

neg: Commercial speech This ruling, however, would be overturned with "Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council" (1976) and "Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission" (1980). The Court has recognized that commercial speech does not fall outside the purview of the First Amendment and has afforded commercial speech a measure of First Amendment protection "commensurate" with its position in relation to other constitutionally guaranteed expression. The Court has set forth a framework under "Central Hudson" for analyzing commercial speech under intermediate scrutiny: Whereas "Central Hudson" limits what commercial speech can be said, another facet is related compelled

neg: Sable Communications of California v. FCC shield minors from dial-a-porn services. The court drew a sharp distinction between speech that meets the legal definition of "obscene" and speech that is "indecent" (sexually charged but not rising to the level of "obscene"). The court held that obscene speech could be restricted, but that merely indecent speech was protected by the First Amendment. The court also recognized a real need for governmental interest in shielding children from speech that could be obscene to minors, but not for adults. However, the court stressed that these limitations must be limited so they can distinguish what is and what is not

neg: First Amendment to the United States Constitution forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation. The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In "Near v. Minnesota" (1931) and "New York Times

neg: Morse v. Frederick students. Alito concluded that an exception must be made to the First Amendment free speech guarantee to protect the students; since according to Alito, advocating illegal drugs possibly leads to violence. But Alito insisted that this small reduction of what is protected by the First Amendment is "at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits". Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, arguing that the Court should not have directly answered the First Amendment question in the case, but rather decided it based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense

neg: Soft drink form of business practices which should be regulated by the government. In the 1976 case of "Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council", the Supreme Court ruled that advertising, or "commercial speech", to some degree is protected under the First Amendment. To avoid a First Amendment challenge by corporations, public schools could create contracts that restrict the sale of certain product and advertising. Public schools can also ban the selling of all food and drink products on campus, while not infringing on a corporation's right to free speech. On December 13, 2010, President Obama signed the Healthy

neg: Child pornography laws in the United States expression governed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in "Miller v. California". Child pornography is also not protected by the First Amendment, but importantly, for different reasons. In 1982 the Supreme Court held in "New York v. Ferber" that child pornography, even if not obscene, is not protected speech. The court gave a number of justifications why child pornography should not be protected, including that the government has a compelling interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological

neg: United States Bill of Rights most notably in "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964). Commercial speech is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation. The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In "Near v. Minnesota" (1931) and "New York Times v. United States" (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed

neg: Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada formation of its Constitution. The court also elaborated on the issue by explaining that First Amendment protections are crucial to the "robust exchange of ideas" without "fear of economic or official retaliation." However, "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission" showed that the tradition of protecting anonymous speech primarily applied to political causes, not necessarily commercial speech. The Ninth Circuit, therefore, stated that the right to free speech is necessarily limited by the circumstances and type of speech at issue. After reviewing the posted content in the case, the court classified the anonymous postings and videos as commercial speech. For this reason,

neg: School speech (First Amendment) displayed on a large banner at a school-sponsored event, when those words convey a message promoting the use of illegal drugs. One of these factors is whether the activity sought to be controlled is "pure speech", or sufficiently related to the expression of ideas to fall under the umbrella of the First Amendment. "Pure speech" does not need to involve words but is generally represented by symbols or actions. The focus of the protected speech activity, whether "pure speech" or not, may affect the propriety of regulation by school officials. School speech (First Amendment) The issue of school speech or

neg: Symbolic speech in the culture of today, to hopefully consider my position." The court ruled 7–1 against O'Brien. In the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren wrote that while the First Amendment does protect freedom of speech, it does not protect all things that may extraneously be labeled 'symbolic speech'. As such, O'Brien's protest was not protected because the United States had a compelling interest in preventing the destruction or mutilation of draft cards. To help himself and future justices determine what may be protected under the free speech clause, he developed a series of requirements that laws must meet in

neg: Washington Redskins trademark dispute of disparaging terms is unconstitutionally vague in its wording and has not been applied with consistency. On March 23, 2015, the Attorney General's Office filed a brief addressing the Constitutional issues, stating that as commercial speech, the team name and logo are not protected by the First Amendment, and that there is a large number of cases supporting the cancellation of the trademarks. The brief also stated that the court should also reject the claim that the cancellation of trademarks constitutes an illegal taking of valuable property which is barred by the Fifth Amendment. By opening up an inquiry into

neg: Corporate personhood what role corporate money plays and should play in democratic politics. This is part of the larger debate on campaign finance reform and the role which money may play in politics. In the United States, legal milestones in this debate include: The corporate personhood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on "Buckley v. Valeo" (1976) and "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" (2010): "Buckley" ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while "Citizens United" ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.

neg: United States free speech exceptions Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected. Another class of permissible restrictions on speech is based on intellectual property rights. Things like copyrights or trademarks fall under this exception. The Supreme Court first held this in "Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises" (1985), where copyright law was upheld against a First Amendment free speech challenge. Also, broadcasting rights for shows are not an infringement of free speech rights. The Court has upheld such restrictions as an incentive for artists in the 'speech marketplace'. Commercial speech occupies a unique role as a free speech exception.

neg: Freedom of speech in the United States First Amendment. See "Watts v. United States", "Virginia v. Black". Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is a type of speech which is not legally protected. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.) The 1998 Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act in Alabama applies to sex toys. The similar 1973 Texas obscenity statute (updated in 2003) was declared unconstitutional in 2008. See

neg: First Amendment to the United States Constitution not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. To effectively distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech for purposes of litigation, the Court uses a list of four indicia: Alone, each indicium does not compel the conclusion that an instance of speech is commercial; however, "[t]he combination of "all" these characteristics . . . provides strong support for . . . the conclusion that the [speech is] properly characterized as commercial speech." In "Valentine v. Chrestensen" (1942), the Court upheld a New York City ordinance forbidding the "distribution in the streets of commercial and business advertising matter."

neg: Saxe v. State College Area School District to a school's educational resources"—the purpose claimed by proponents of academic speech codes—are not constitutional when what they actually do is prohibit speech seen as offensive by those who disagree with or are annoyed by it. Furthermore, the claim that the government has the power to curtail speech when it is likely to produce "a specific and significant fear of disruption" cannot justify the banning of offensive speech in a free society that is protected by the First Amendment. As the Court ruled: "The Supreme Court has held time and again, both within and outside the school context, that the

neg: Imminent lawless action Imminent lawless action "Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. "Brandenburg" clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by "Schenck v. United States" (1919), and overruled "Whitney v. California" (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and

neg: Rickert v. Public Disclosure Commission First Amendment to the United States Constitution." However, because the statute in question prohibited both defamatory and non-defamatory speech, he joined the majority in invalidating the law. In the dissent, joined by justices Bobbe J. Bridge, Tom Chambers and Mary E. Fairhurst, justice Barbara A. Madsen wrote that "the majority's decision is an invitation to lie with impunity." The dissent argued that because the law required that punishable speech be made with actual malice, as required by the invalidated law, the type of speech in question was not protected under the U.S. Constitution. Rickert v. Public Disclosure Commission Rickert v.

neg: United States free speech exceptions would have been protected if said by a citizen. Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare. United States free speech exceptions Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, exceptions have been made for speech that violates the legal rights of others, or because of compelling governmental interests. Examples of these categories include

neg: Hate speech not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories. Court rulings often must be reexamined to ensure the U.S. Constitution is being upheld in the ruling on whether or not the words count as a violation. Proponents of hate speech legislation in the United States have argued that freedom of speech undermines the 14 Amendment by bolstering an oppressive narrative which demeans equality and the Reconstructive Amendment's purpose of guaranteeing equal protection under the

neg: Pornography in the United States Justice John Roberts told at the confirmation hearing on his nomination: "Well, Senator, it's my understanding under the Supreme Court's doctrine that pornographic expression is not protected to the same extent at least as political and core speech, and the difficulty that the Court has addressed in these different areas of course is always defining what is or is not pornography and what is entitled to protection under the First Amendment and what is not". The famous Indianapolis definition of pornography by Dworkin and MacKinnon paralleled their Minneapolis ordinance. The first was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals

neg: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti determination that the case was not, in fact, moot. The Court's rationale was twofold: first, the interval between the amendment's proposal and its referendum was too short for complete judicial review to have occurred; and second, the Court found that there was a reasonable expectation that the appellants would be adversely affected by the statute again. Then, the Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts statute in question violated corporate speech rights protected under the First Amendment. The majority wrote that "commercial speech is accorded some constitutional protection not so much because it pertains to the seller's business as because it

neg: Contempt of cop the allegedly contemptuous behavior. Charges such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, fleeing from police and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons in a contempt of cop arrest. Obstructing a police officer or failure to obey a police order is also cited in arrests in some jurisdictions, particularly as a stand-alone charge without any other charges brought. Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, so non-threatening verbal "abuse" of a police officer is not in itself criminal behavior, though some courts have disagreed on what constitutes protected speech in this regard.

neg: Overbreadth doctrine Oklahoma". Overbreadth doctrine In American jurisprudence, the overbreadth doctrine is primarily concerned with facial challenges to laws under the First Amendment. American courts have recognized several exceptions to the speech protected by the First Amendment (for example, obscenity, fighting words, and libel or defamation), and states therefore have some latitude to regulate unprotected speech. A statute doing so is overly broad (hence, overbreadth) if, in proscribing "unprotected" speech, it also proscribes "protected" speech. Because an overly broad law may deter constitutionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows a party to whom the law may constitutionally be applied to challenge the

neg: Overbreadth doctrine Overbreadth doctrine In American jurisprudence, the overbreadth doctrine is primarily concerned with facial challenges to laws under the First Amendment. American courts have recognized several exceptions to the speech protected by the First Amendment (for example, obscenity, fighting words, and libel or defamation), and states therefore have some latitude to regulate unprotected speech. A statute doing so is overly broad (hence, overbreadth) if, in proscribing "unprotected" speech, it also proscribes "protected" speech. Because an overly broad law may deter constitutionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows a party to whom the law may constitutionally be applied to challenge the statute

neg: Cyberstalking legislation the school district to court, citing a breach of her First Amendment rights; the court agreed with the student and found the school district had overstepped its authority. In another California case, in which a student was harassed after posting personal information online, the court found that threatening posts were "not" protected speech. That said, "true" threats are not considered to be protected speech. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have taken the view that cyberbullying is an overly expansive term, and that the First Amendment protects all speech, even the reprehensible; this protection would extend to the

neg: Hate speech in the United States Hate speech in the United States Hate speech in the United States is much less regulated when compared to that of most other liberal democracies. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. In academic circles, there has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation. The protection of civil

neg: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District school." The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech. The Court ruled that First Amendment rights were not absolute, and could be withheld if there was a “carefully restricted circumstance.” Student speech that has the potential to cause disruption is not protected by "Tinker." Justices Hugo Black and John M. Harlan II dissented. Black, who had long believed that disruptive "symbolic speech" was not constitutionally protected, wrote, "While I have always believed that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments neither the State

neg: Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York ruled that the ad of the American Freedom Defense Initiative is protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the MTA's actions were unconstitutional. The judge held in a 35-page opinion that the rejected ad was "not only protected speech — it is core political speech ... [which as such] is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment." The MTA had received $116.4 million in revenue in 2011 from advertising sold throughout its subway, commuter rail, and bus systems. In April 2015, another ad became the subject of controversy when the MTA refused to display

neg: Pamela Geller was overturned in July 2012, when Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the ad was protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the MTA's actions were unconstitutional. The judge held in a 35-page opinion that the rejected ad was "not only protected speech — it is core political speech ... [which as such] is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment". Opponents argue that the ad implies Muslims are savages. Others argue the opposite - that it is insulting to assume Muslims will

neg: Freedom of speech in the United States request, or opinion. Expressive conduct is recognized as being protected under the First Amendment as a form of speech, although this is not expressly written as such in the document. For example, seen in light of the First Amendment, computer code is a "way to speak" about how a problem is solved, using the precise terms a computer might be given as directions, and flag burning is a "way to speak" or express forcefully of one's views opposing the acts or political position of the relevant country. Significantly, the possibility exists for a single speech act to be protected or

neg: Cook v. Gates that it unconstitutionally burdens protected speech". James E. Pietrangelo, one of the "Cook" plaintiffs, petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The petition was rejected Cook v. Gates Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008), is a decision on July 9, 2008, of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that upheld the "Don't ask, Don't tell" (DADT) policy (Title 10, Section 654) against due process and equal protection Fifth Amendment challenges and a free speech challenge under the First Amendment, and which found that no earlier Supreme Court decision

neg: Credit rating agency Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandated improvements to the regulation of credit rating agencies and addressed several issues relating to the accuracy of credit ratings specifically. Under Dodd-Frank rules, agencies must publicly disclose how their ratings have performed over time and must provide additional information in their analyses so investors can make better decisions. An amendment to the act also specifies that ratings are not protected by the First Amendment as free speech but are "fundamentally commercial in character and should be subject to the same standards of liability and oversight as apply to auditors, securities analysts and investment

neg: First Amendment to the United States Constitution speech. In "Janus v. AFSCME" (2018), the Court ruled that requiring a public sector employee to pay dues to a union to which he is not a member violated the First Amendment. According to the Court, “the First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party’s speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who does not want to pay.” Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does

neg: Waters v. Churchill only when their purpose is clearly retaliatory, as he believed it had been in "Pickering". He attacked the plurality opinion as creating a poorly defined procedural requirement that might well prove unworkable in practice. "There is no dispute in this case about when speech by a government employee is protected by the First Amendment," began O'Connor's analysis, after she recounted the facts of the case. "The dispute is over how the factual basis for applying the test—what the speech was, in what tone it was delivered, what the listener's reactions were—is to be determined." She agreed with Churchill that some

neg: Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors a live performance, for instance, then it is not protected speech. Under "Miller v. California", obscene speech is likewise excluded from First Amendment protection. The CPPA made all virtual child sex depictions illegal without regard to whether the speech was protected or not, so that part of the statute was struck down as facially invalid. In response to "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition", Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the "Amber Alert Law") and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by President George W. Bush. The PROTECT Act amended the previous law on child

neg: Freedom of speech in the United States a candidate are not political speech and thus can be subjected to significant regulations; such restrictions have been upheld in "Buckley v. Valeo". Not wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment is commercial speech, which is speech that "propose[s] a commercial transaction", as defined by "Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn." in 1978. Such speech still has expressive value although it is being uttered in a marketplace ordinarily regulated by the state. In 1980, "Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission" held that restrictions of commercial speech are subject to a four-element intermediate scrutiny. "Sorrell v.

neg: National Coalition Against Censorship containing explanations of art that is (and is not) protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to their website, their mission is to: NCAC formed "The Coalition" in 1973 in response to the Supreme Court decision in "Miller v. California". The decision concluded that the first amendment does not protect obscene speech and defined obscene as something lacking serious literary, artistic, or scientific value. The Free Speech Defender Awards is NCAC's annual fundraiser. On November 5th, 2018 the Free Speech Defender awards took place in New York City and honored the Artistic Director of The Public Theater,

neg: Krinsky v. Doe 6 held that the language of Doe 6's posts were not actionable defamatory statements. Rather, "they fall into the category of crude, satirical hyperbole which, while reflecting the immaturity of the speaker, constitute protected opinion under the First Amendment." With regard to the accusation of interference with a contractual/business relationship, the court agreed with Doe 6's argument that "the applicability of the First Amendment to his speech on the message board forecloses on [Krinsky's] claim", that is, that the accusation of interference with a business relationship was irrelevant given that Doe 6's speech was protected by the US Constitution. Krinsky v.

neg: Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico "The general proposition advanced by the majority today—that a State may prohibit the advertising of permitted conduct if it may prohibit the conduct altogether—bears little resemblance to the grotesquely flawed regulation of speech advanced by Puerto Rico in this case... The First Amendment surely does not permit Puerto Rico's frank discrimination among publications, audiences, and words." The case is regarded as a landmark in illustrating the elasticity of the "Central Hudson" standards for regulating commercial speech. In 2003's "Freedom of Commercial Expression", Roger Shiner points out that what was remarkable about the "Posadas" decision was the way in which the

neg: Obscenity of limitations on the freedom of speech and of the press, which are otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Federal obscenity law in the U.S. is unusual in that there is no uniform national standard. Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly "what is obscene," famously wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced ... [b]ut I know it when I see it..." In the United States, the 1973 ruling

neg: Opinion privilege opinion is based on false facts. Opinion that implies alleged facts has the same standing as the implied alleged fact. Fact couched as opinion is not protected. For example "It is my opinion that he is a liar." would not be treated any differently than "He is a liar." Opinion privilege Opinion privilege is a protected form of speech, of importance to US federal and state law. The US First Amendment guarantees free speech, subject to certain limitations. One of these limitations is defamation, in various forms, notably libel. While federal precedent does not explicitly state that opinion is protected

neg: Freedom of speech in the United States Federal Election Commission". See "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth. Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline as per the case of "Garcetti v. Ceballos". This applies also to private contractors that have the government as a client. The First Amendment only protects employees from government employers albeit only when speaking publicly outside their official duties in the public interest

neg: United States obscenity law fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subject to decisions within local US federal districts and contemporary moral standards. In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an "explicit" legal precedent (the "Miller test", below) that all but guarantees that something that is legally obscene in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the

neg: PROTECT Act of 2003 held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable. The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in May 2008 and upheld this portion of the act. The first

neg: Four Freedoms half of the speech, he lists the benefits of democracy, which include economic opportunity, employment, social security, and the promise of "adequate health care". The first two freedoms, of speech and religion, are protected by the First Amendment in the United States Constitution. His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional Constitutional values protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights. Roosevelt endorsed a broader human right to economic security and anticipated what would become known decades later as the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development. He also included the "freedom from fear" against national

neg: Opinion privilege Opinion privilege Opinion privilege is a protected form of speech, of importance to US federal and state law. The US First Amendment guarantees free speech, subject to certain limitations. One of these limitations is defamation, in various forms, notably libel. While federal precedent does not explicitly state that opinion is protected against prosecution under libel laws (indeed it explicitly states the contrary), the combined effect of several rulings is such as to effectively make such the case. Opinion privilege has its roots in the common law fair comment doctrine. Opinion based on fact is not protected "qua" opinion, if the

neg: Open-fields doctrine what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of shifting the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, to whether the given place is actually an open field or some other type of area like curtilage. This is because a person "can" have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas classed as such. While open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, may be protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the

neg: Garcetti v. Ceballos that because Ceballos wrote his memo pursuant to the duties of his employment, he was not entitled to First Amendment protection for the memo's contents. In the alternative, it ruled that even if he had a protected speech right in this context, the right was not clearly established and so qualified immunity applied to his supervisors' actions. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that his criticism of the warrant in the memo constituted protected speech under the First Amendment. The court applied the analysis set forth in Supreme Court precedent that looks to

neg: Pornography in the United States however, under the Miller test established by "Miller v. California", anything lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is generally not protected. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held in "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition" (2002) that pornography which involves consenting adults is protected by the First Amendment, even if the models "appear to be" minors but are, in fact of lawful age, and thus has seen to protect the majority of, but not all pornography on the basis of first-amendment law. Pornography's critics and detractors have blamed it for a succession of societal and spiritual ills.

neg: Communications Decency Act of the CDA intended to protect children from indecent speech as too broad. On June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the Philadelphia court's decision in "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union," stating that the indecency provisions were an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because they did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children, extended to non-commercial speech, and did not carefully define the words "indecent" and "offensive." (The New York case, "Reno v. Shea", was affirmed by the Supreme Court the next day, without a published opinion.)

neg: Hate speech in the United States the Supreme Court issued their ruling on "Snyder v. Phelps," which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political,

neg: Carey v. Population Services International advertising by an electric utility. The Court held that the regulation was a violation of Amendment I because the state interest in ensuring fair and efficient utility rates was not sufficiently linked to the ban. In the case of the electric company, the public service commission’s concern over the equality and efficiency of utility rates did not provide a constitutionally acceptable reason for restricting protected speech. The ban on all promotional advertising by the company violated both Amendment I in respect to the freedom of speech, and the Amendment XIV in regards to the Due Process Clause. Carey v. Population

neg: Phone sex its ban on 'obscene speech' could stand." On June 23, 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that obscene speech, even in commercial telephone calls, was not protected, though indecent speech was. Justice Byron White wrote for the high court's majority A phone sex worker is a type of sex worker and pornographic actor, sometimes referred to as a "phone sex operator", "fantasy artist", "adult phone entertainer", "audio erotic performer", or any one of other monikers. The most valued attributes of a phone sex professional are his or her voice, acting and sexual roleplay skills, along with the experienced ability to

neg: Matal v. Tam statute must "effectively advance [] those interests"; and (3) the statute must be "narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests asserted." For "Central Hudson" to apply, the court would have to determine that the statute at issue deals with commercial speech. From "Central Hudson", the Supreme Court developed a four-part test to determine whether a statute should pass muster. The test looks to see: (1) Whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment—for it to fall here, it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading; (2) whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial; (3) whether the regulation directly

neg: Open primaries in the United States for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech." In other words, the freedom of association is part of the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech, which is found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment. In "Gitlow v. New York", Justice Sanford states that "[f]or present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press-which are protected by the First

neg: Diane Wood speech labeling abortion as murder, urging the clinics to get out of the abortion business, and urging clinics patients not to seek abortions is fully protected by the First Amendment. However, Wood held that the injunction issued by the district court, which prohibited violent conduct by protesters, struck a proper balance and avoided any risk of curtailing activities protected by the First Amendment. Wood was elected to the American Law Institute in 1990 and was elected to the ALI Council in 2003. She is Chair of the ALI's Nominating Committee and an Adviser on two projects: the Restatement Fourth, The

neg: Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner the courts held that property rights were violated and people’s First Amendment right was not protected on private property. In Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, the Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of anti-war leaflets was not protected under the First Amendment. Since, the court system has left it up to the states constitution to determine the decision. In a similar case in New Jersey, the Supreme court has upheld freedom of speech over private property rights. However, they have been limited to only the distribution of leaflets, but other means of public speech have been rejected affirming property rights. The

neg: Academic freedom whether via social media or in academic journals, they are able to articulate their own opinions without the fear from institutional restriction or punishment, but they are encouraged to show restraint and clearly specify that they are not speaking for their institution. In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and academic custom. In the U.S., the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." By extension, the First Amendment applies

neg: Andy Griffith Griffith/Fenrick, asserting that he violated trademark, copyright, and privacy laws by changing his name for the "sole purpose of taking advantage of Griffith's fame in an attempt to gain votes." On May 4, 2007, US District Court Judge John C. Shabaz ruled that Griffith/Fenrick did not violate federal trademark law because he did not use the Griffith name in a commercial transaction but instead in order "to seek elective office, fundamental First Amendment protected speech." Griffith's friendship with Don Knotts began in 1955, when they co-starred in the Broadway play "No Time for Sergeants". Several years later, Knotts had a

neg: Commercial speech commercial speech in the form of government-mandated disclaimers or other information required to be included in some forms of commercial speech. This concept was established as constitutional in "Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio", , which established the Zauderer standard to judge which such government-mandated speech does not violate First Amendment rights of the commercial speaker. "Zauderer" found that the government can mandate commercial speech to include "purely factual and uncontroversial information" when it is reasonably related to the government's interest and "to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception". The Zauderer standard has

neg: Bogaert v. Land governing recall signature gathering is unconstitutional because it infringes on political speech rights protected in the First Amendment. Bell ruled that signatures from voters inside Dillon's district should be counted even if they were collected by petition circulators who lived outside the district or weren't registered to vote. Under Michigan law, those signatures aren't considered valid. "The circulation of recall petitions is core political speech," Bell wrote, saying that recall organizers' First Amendment rights were "severely burdened" by state law. Bell said the state and Dillon did not show how requiring recall petition circulators to be registered voters and district

neg: Miller test Miller test The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited. The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case "Miller v. California". It has three parts: The work is considered obscene only if "all three" conditions are satisfied. The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the last prong is held to what

neg: Freedom of speech in the United States "Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist.", updated and clarified by "Lane v. Franks". Speech is not protected from private sector disciplinary action. A number of cases consider speech is related to or required by an employer, or speech retaliated against by a third party such as an employer. The case "Lane vs. Burrows" (previously Lane vs. Franks) considers a number of these matters and summarizes the outcome. A person who testifies in a court, and where that testimony is not part of their employment duties, testifies as a citizen and has First Amendment protection, whereas a

neg: United States obscenity law speech and of the press protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but the courts still need to determine whether material in question in each case is in fact obscene. Legally, a distinction is made between socially permitted material and discussions that the public can access on the one hand and "obscenity", access to which should be denied, on the other. There does exist a classification of those acceptable materials and discussions that the public should be allowed to engage in,

neg: Andrew Kleinfeld speech protected by the First Amendment, and the school principal acted unconstitutionally in suspending him. The school board appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which heard the case on March 19, 2007. The Supreme Court, in a 2007 majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, reversed Kleinfeld's ruling and ruled that the First Amendment does not protect in-school student speech advocating illegal drug use. One key point of disagreement between Judge Kleinfeld's opinion and Chief Justice Roberts' was whether the speech was at or during school. As the banner was displayed across the street from the school (which

neg: Stromberg v. California to be found unconstitutional. Justice Butler believed that in this case, the Court was not called upon to decide whether the display of the flag constituted constitutionally-protected speech, nor to decide whether such speech was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, nor whether the real or imagined anarchy that could follow a successful opposition to organized government creates a sufficiently compelling reason to prohibit such activities. It appears (though he does not specify it in his dissent) that he viewed the matter as that of procedural challenges, rather than a case of broad protections of freedom of speech. Stromberg v. California

neg: History of erotic depictions European art by combining the traditionally explicit representation of sex and the moral norms of those times. The first amendment prohibits the U.S. government from restricting speech based on its content. Indecent speech is protected and may be regulated, but not banned. Obscenity is the judicially recognized exception to the first amendment. Historically, this exception was used in an attempt to ban information about sex education, studies on nudism, and sexually explicit literature. In the 1970s in the United States, attempts were made to shut down the pornography industry by prosecuting individuals on prostitution charges. In the case of "People

neg: Facebook like button the employees fought back in court, with the argument that a "like" should be protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution about free speech. In September 2013, a federal appeals court ruled that "likes" are a form of protected speech under the amendment, commenting that "On the most basic level, clicking on the 'like' button literally causes to be published the statement that the User 'likes' something, which is itself a substantive statement. In the context of a political campaign’s page, the meaning that the user approves of the candidacy whose page is being liked is unmistakable.

neg: Freedom of speech in the United States Freedom of speech in the United States In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, only prevents

neg: Bates v. State Bar of Arizona to the general public and improve the overall administration of justice. The Court had previously held in "Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council" that advertising by pharmacists regarding the price of prescription drugs was commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. John Bates and Van O'Steen graduated from the Arizona State University College of Law in 1972. Two years later, they formed a legal clinic, in order to "provide legal services at modest fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for governmental legal aid". Therefore, they accepted only cases involving "routine matters, such as

neg: Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected.

neg: Cybercrime the former usually relates to a person's "use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act," while the latter need not involve anything of a sexual nature. Although freedom of speech is protected by law in most democratic societies (in the US this is done by the First Amendment), it does not include all types of speech. In fact spoken or written "true threat" speech/text is criminalized because of "intent to harm or intimidate", that also

neg: Reichskriegsflagge handled without a court process and that carries only a fine that is not legally considered a punishment). In the United States, conversely, American-founded white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan have used the "Reichskriegsfahne" side-by-side with the Confederate "battle flag" at their gatherings at times. As the public display of Nazi flags within the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees the right to freedom of speech, sights like the Nazi and Confederate "rebel flag" together at white supremacist events are interpreted as a form of legally protected free speech

neg: Mandatory disclaimer for enforcing the regulations of the FCPA was the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Today, the FDA is the main body responsible for mandating disclaimers in the United States. Mandatory disclaimers are still used widely in the U.S. The imposition of mandatory disclaimers is an exception to the First Amendment that was allowed by the Supreme Court of the United States in "Valentine v. Christensen" (1942). The exception to the First Amendment applies to commercial speech, which the Court defined as speech that “proposes a commercial transaction.” Later cases have attempted to limit the extent of the “commercial speech" restriction

neg: First Amendment to the United States Constitution were unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court overruled "Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce" (1990), which had upheld a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury funds to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the portion of "McConnell" that upheld such restrictions under the BCRA. In other words, the ruling was considered to hold that "political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment". In "McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission" (2014), the Court ruled that federal aggregate

neg: Beck v. Eiland-Hall providing factual information (as opposed to protected criticism or similar protected speech) about Mr. Beck." On October 20, 2009, Eiland-Hall filed a in response to Beck's supplemental filing. Eiland-Hall asserted in the surreply that Beck was the butt of a viral joke which was protected speech even if it was not perceived as comedic in nature by the subject. He stated Beck had depreciated the value of the First Amendment by attempting to evade its reach in a legal proceeding outside U.S. courts. On October 29, 2009, the WIPO ruled against Glenn Beck in the case. For Beck to have

neg: Symbolic speech Symbolic speech Symbolic speech is a legal term in United States law used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it. Symbolic speech is recognized as being protected under the First Amendment as a form of speech, but this is not expressly written as such in the document. One possible explanation as to why the Framers did not address this issue in the Bill of Rights is because the primary forms for both political debate and protest in their time were verbal expression and published word, and they may have been

neg: NAACP v. Button and other rights. Litigation, too, he said, was protected. Litigation was not merely a mechanism for resolving differences between two private parties but a constitutionally protected form of political expression. Furthermore, litigation is constitutionally protected because it is one of the few lawful means by which equal protection of the laws can be enforced. The state of Virginia had argued that organizational activity (collecting membership dues, hiring attorneys, advocating lawsuits, etc.) of the kind the NAACP engaged in was not literally a speech act, a petition for redress of grievances, or assembly of the kind mentioned in the First Amendment.

neg: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." The Court then clarified language from previous free speech clause cases, including "Roth v. United States", "Beauharnais v. Illinois", and "Chaplinsky" that suggested that certain categories of expression are "not within the area of constitutionally protected speech," and "must be taken in context." The Court's clarification stated that this meant that certain areas of speech "can, consistently with the First Amendment, be regulated "because of their constitutionally proscribable content" (obscenity, defamation, etc.)—not that they are categories of speech entirely invisible to the Constitution, so that

neg: Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach or not the process of tattooing falls under First Amendment protection in a specific case. Noonan also indicates that while the process of tattooing may qualify as protected speech, tattooing still requires regulation because the creation of a tattoo can involve dangerous risks to a client’s health and safety. Until 2010, no federal court of appeals had decided a case that involved tattooing restrictions and free speech implications. The United States Supreme Court has not addressed the First Amendment issues raised by the process of tattooing and denied a writ of certiorari to a case that challenged South Carolina’s restrictions

neg: Freedom of speech the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in the United States almost absolute. Hate speech is also protected by the First Amendment in the United States, as decided in "R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul", (1992) in which the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible, except in the case of imminent violence. See the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for more detailed information on this decision and its historical background. Jo Glanville, editor of the "Index on Censorship", states that "the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech". International,

neg: Campaign finance evolution in 2010 the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 2. That this rationale in fact "interferes with the 'open marketplace of ideas' protected by the First Amendment." According to the Court, "[a]ll speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.” 3. And that "the rule that political speech cannot be limited based on a speaker’s wealth is a necessary consequence of the premise that the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political

neg: Speech code far when interpreting and punishing statements like the one in question. The college eventually dropped the charges amid national criticism (Downs, 1993), (Kors & Silverglate, 1998). There are two distinct reasons given for the implementation of speech codes, most often given in the context of higher education institutions. The first is as follows, "First, to protect vulnerable students from threatening, truly harassing speech that amounts to 'fighting words,' which are not protected by the First Amendment" (Downs, 1993). The second reason is more abstract, leaving room for argument both for and against the reason. One author states, "Second, [speech codes]

neg: Garcetti v. Ceballos majority opinion; he also noted that he could not accept Justice Souter's answer as satisfactory. Breyer agreed that the First Amendment protections cannot be universal for plurality speech, political speech, or government speech. In instances where the speech of government employees is concerned, the First Amendment protections exist only when such protection does not unduly interfere with governmental interests. In cases where the employee speaks as a citizen upon matters of public concern, the speech receives protection only if it passes the "Pickering" balancing test. However, prior cases did not decide what screening test a judge should utilize in circumstances

neg: Hate crime rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. Whilst in the case of "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire" the court defined "fighting words" as "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination is in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics. Many critics further

neg: Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan a violation of Carrigan's First Amendment rights because "this Court has rejected the notion that the First Amendment confers a right to use governmental mechanics to convey a message." In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy voiced concern that the ethics law had vague language and was an invitation for selective enforcement. Kennedy joined the Court's opinion because "the act of casting an official vote is not itself protected by the Speech Clause of the First Amendment", however he noted that "as the Court observes, however, the question whether Nevada’s recusal statute was applied in a manner that burdens the First Amendment

neg: Commercial speech Commercial speech In law, commercial speech is speech or writing on behalf of a business with the intent of earning a profit. It is economic in nature and usually attempts to persuade consumers to purchase the business's product or service. The Supreme Court of the United States defines commercial speech as speech that "proposes a commercial transaction". In the United States, commercial speech is "entitled to substantial First Amendment protection, albeit less than political, ideological, or artistic speech". In the 1980 case "Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission", the U.S. Supreme Court developed a four-part test

neg: Robert Bery of visual street art in the types of speech protected by the First Amendment. ...that, for purposes of content-neutral analysis, alternative channels for expression are inadequate if they are not widely available." Villanova University published an article about Bery vs. New York in 1998 as part of the "Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law" Digital Commons and the "First Amendment" Digital Common entitled "Bery v. New York: Do Artists Have a First Amendment Right to Sell and Display Art in Public Places" One of Bery's personal statements about the court case, is that "...it is the biggest and most important art

neg: Steve Yuhas him a racist. In December 2008, Yuhas was sued by high school principal Michael J. Rood. During a broadcast, Rood alleged Yuhas defamed him and invaded his privacy by inquiring in the school district where Rood was employed. Yuhas claimed what he said was true and that his opinion that Rood worked as an associate publisher of a pornographic magazine while on duty at his school while using school resources was true and protected. Yuhas filed a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation to dismiss the case as a protected speech. Yuhas was represented by high-profile First Amendment attorney Guylyn Cummins

neg: Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio joined in a separate concurrence in part and dissent in part). The principal matter of "Zauderer" centered on the requirement of Ohio's Disciplinary Rules for disclosure of contingent-fee arrangements. White wrote: The State has attempted only to prescribe what shall be orthodox in commercial advertising, and its prescription has taken the form of a requirement that appellant include in his advertising purely factual and uncontroversial information about the terms under which his services will be available. Because the extension of First Amendment protection to commercial speech is justified principally by the value to consumers of the information such speech provides,