Related Research Articles
Hate speech is a legal term with varied meaning. It has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of society and the state.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test, also known as the "substantial disruption" test, is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's interest to prevent disruption infringes upon students' First Amendment rights.
In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. 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, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, It can be restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.
Horace Julian Bond was an American social activist, leader of the civil rights movement, politician, professor, and writer. While he was a student at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, during the early 1960s, he helped establish the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1971, he co-founded the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, and served as its first president for nearly a decade.
Anti-discrimination law or non-discrimination law refers to legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people; these groups are often referred to as protected groups or protected classes. Anti-discrimination laws vary by jurisdiction with regard to the types of discrimination that are prohibited, and also the groups that are protected by that legislation. Commonly, these types of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as public accommodations. Anti-discrimination law may include protections for groups based on sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, sex characteristics, religion, creed, or individual political opinions.
Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review and strict scrutiny.
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that, when a government operates a "limited public forum", it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint which it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical Christian club for children.
Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw is an American civil rights advocate and a leading scholar of using critical race theory as a lens to further explore and examine the Tulsa massacre. She is a professor at the UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School, where she specializes in race and gender issues.
Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History is a non-fiction book about the history of freedom of speech in the United States written by Michael Kent Curtis and published in 2000 by Duke University Press. The book discusses the evolution of free speech in the U.S. within the context of the actions of individuals and how they affected change. The author writes that protests and actions by citizens helped to evolve the notions surrounding free speech in the U.S. before definitive statements on the matter from U.S. courts. Curtis writes that free speech rights were first developed in "the forum of public opinion", and that, "The history of free speech shows the need for broadly protective free speech rules applied generally and equally".
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez, whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions since they believed that it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.
Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism is a book about freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, written by author Samuel Peter Nelson. It was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2005. In it, Nelson discusses how the more general notion of free speech differs from that specifically applied to the First Amendment in American law.
Tom Devine is an American lawyer, investigator, lobbyist, teacher, and advocate for whistleblower rights. He is currently the legal director at the non-profit Government Accountability Project, in Washington, D.C., where he has worked since 1979. He has assisted more than 7,000 whistleblowers, testified in Congress over 50 times, and has been a leader on the front lines to draft, enact, help to enact, or defend 34 whistleblower laws in the United States and abroad, including nearly all federal laws since 1978 and international rights ranging from former Soviet Bloc nations such as Kosovo, Serbia and Ukraine to the United Nations, World Bank, European Union, and Organization of American States. He is also an adjunct professor at the District of Columbia School of Law, where he teaches classes on and supervises clinical programs in whistleblower protection.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.
Neomi Jehangir Rao is an American jurist who serves as a federal appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, having served in the Trump Administration from 2017 to 2019 as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Anti-BDS laws and resolutions oppose boycotts of Israel. The name comes from the BDS movement, which calls for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel to pressure Israel to meet what it describes as Israel's obligations under international law. Anti-BDS laws are designed to make it difficult for people and organizations to participate in boycotts of Israel while anti-BDS resolutions are symbolic and non-binding parliamentary condemnations, either of boycotts of Israel or of BDS itself. Generally, such condemnations accuse BDS of being antisemitic and are often followed by laws targeting boycotts of Israel.
Gautam Bhatia is a constitutional law scholar and science fiction author from India.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state of Colorado cannot compel the designer to create work that violates her values. The case follows from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), which had dealt with similar conflict between free speech rights and Colorado's anti-discrimination laws, but was decided on narrower grounds.
References
- ↑ Bloom, Lackland H. (2019). "The Rise of the Viewpoint-Discrimination Principle". SMU Law Review Forum. 72 (1): 20–40. doi: 10.25172/slrf.72.1.3 .
- ↑ Kelso, R. Randall (3 January 2019). "Clarifying Viewpoint Discrimination In Free Speech Doctrine". Social Science Research Network. SSRN 3360691.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ↑ ""Giving Offense is a Viewpoint": Supreme Court Holds It Is Viewpoint Discrimination To Deny Trademark Protection For Allegedly Offensive Marks". The National Law Review.
- ↑ Hudson, David L. "Viewpoint Discrimination". www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved 15 August 2020.
- ↑ "Viewpoint Discrimination in Free Speech Cases". Civil Liberties and Civil Rights in the United States. Retrieved 15 August 2020.
- ↑ Boggs, Danny (7 December 2015). "A Differing View on Viewpoint Discrimination". University of Chicago Legal Forum. 1993 (1). ISSN 0892-5593.
- ↑ Post, Robert C. (2007–2008). "Viewpoint Discrimination and Commercial Speech". Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 41: 169.
- ↑ Douglas, Maura (1 January 2018). "Finding Viewpoint Neutrality in Our Constitutional Constellation". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 20 (3): 727. ISSN 1521-2823.
  | This article relating to law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |