Loader

LEGAL REPOSITORY

laws

All | A C E G H M N S T U
There are currently 15 laws in this directory
Anti-Circumvention: Intellectual Property - Copyright - Plutocratic Corporate Enforcement
Submitted by: Plutocracy Lock-In

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004)
First, the potential harms from reversal outweigh those of leaving the injunction in place by mistake. Extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech may result where, as here, a prosecution is a likely possibility but only an affirmative defense is available, so that speakers may self-censor rather than risk the perils of trial. Cf. Playboy Entertainment Group, supra, at 817. The harm done from letting the injunction stand pending a trial on the merits, in contrast, will not be extensive. Second, there are substantial factual disputes remaining in the case, including a serious gap in the evidence as to the filtering software’s effectiveness. By allowing the preliminary injunction to stand and remanding for trial, the Court requires the Government to shoulder its full constitutional burden of proof respecting the less restrictive alternative argument, rather than excuse it from doing so. Third, the factual record does not reflect current technological reality—a serious flaw in any case involving the Internet, which evolves at a rapid pace. It is reasonable to assume that technological developments important to the First Amendment analysis have occurred in the five years since the District Court made its factfindings.
Submitted by: US Supreme Court

Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U. S. 678, 701 [1977]

[W]here obscenity is not involved, we have consistently held that the determinations of: "what appeals to the 'prurient interest' or is 'patently offensive' ... are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists."

Submitted by: US Supreme Court 1977

Citizens United (2010) on Corporate Finance in Politics Protected by 1st Amendment

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission argued: 24-Mar-2009 decided 21-Jan-2010. Opening the floodgates for corporate money in politics (including lobbying, campaign finance, etc) by 5-4 judgment equating corporate spend with First Amendment (free speech) for the first time.

Submitted by: Plutocracy Lock-In

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
Submitted by: Online Freedom

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

"Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas."

Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate. As James Madison pointed out in the Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798: "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." A rule of strict liability that compels a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee the accuracy of his factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship. Allowing the media to avoid liability only by proving the truth of all injurious statements does not accord adequate protection to First Amendment liberties.

The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters. Per Supreme Court Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974).

Submitted by: US Supreme Court

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] of the UK House of Lords

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] passed by UK House of Lords (17-Oct-1985)

Submitted by: House of Lords

H.R.748 - CARES Act [2020] of the 116th Congress

H.R.748 - CARES Act [2020] legislated by the 116th House of Congress (2019-2020)

Submitted by: Act of Congress

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

"Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It also must appeal to the prurient interest in the view of an average person according to community standards, and it must describe sexual conduct or excretory functions in an offensive way."

Submitted by: US Supreme Court

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.

The First Amendment as it relates to libel laws, is that seditious libel – criticism of government and public officials – falls beyond the police power of the State [273-276]. In a democratic society such as ours, the citizen has the privilege of criticizing his government and its officials.

Submitted by: US Supreme Court

Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)
Submitted by: Plutocracy Lock-In


The Great Nation of Futurity (1839)

John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839 Excerpted from "The Great Nation of Futurity" in the United States Democratic Review, Volume 6, Issue 23

Submitted by: US Manifest Destiny

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000)
Case involved a content-based restriction designed to protect minors from viewing harmful materials. The Court there concluded that, absent a showing that a less restrictive technological alternative already available to parents would not be as effective as a blanket speech restriction, the more restrictive option preferred by Congress could not survive strict scrutiny. Id., at 826. The reasoning of Playboy Entertainment Group, and the holdings and force of this Court’s precedents, compel the Court to affirm the preliminary injunction here. To do otherwise would be to do less than the First Amendment commands. Id., at 830. Pp. 6–12.
Submitted by: US Supreme Court

United States v Alvarez (2012) | Ashcroft v. American Civ- il Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656, 660

The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.

Submitted by: US Supreme Court

 

0