” “Andrew Jackson” and “Oliver Wendell Holmes.” That’s what Mr. Morgan thought too. The only problem was he wasn’t a lawyer and that wasn’t his name! He was an uneducated
Results for “Twenty-First”
Search across the indexed text of every released document.
Names that match “Twenty-First”
3,986 documents found
Moral and Psychological Implications of Shakespeare’s Tragedies; Ethics and Tactics in the Trial of Criminal Cases; Human Rights; Terrorism and the Law; Probabilities and the Law; a Comparative Analysis of Talmud and Common Law; Wikileaks and the First Amendment; the Arab Israeli...
write and speak—even after my active teaching career at Harvard comes to an end. I am a teacher first and foremost. All of my work—classroom pedagogy
all the time. I defended other trouble-makers. I questioned everything and everybody. I may have had a Fifth Amendment right to “remain silent
which was seen by its framers largely as a bill of restrictions on the power of the national legislature—namely “Congress.” There was considerable concern that the Constitution
obscenity—including dirty words used in the context of a political protest—is not speech. (Perhaps it’s “duck.”) The same is true for other categories of expression that do not—in the view of at least some absolutists—warrant the protection of the First Amendment. I know of no...
” but they argue that the words of the First Amendment should not be read literally. Some argue that they must be understood in the context of the times when they were written
it is clear that not all verbal and other form of expression are protected by the First Amendment. There is widespread disagreement over what are appropriate exceptions
who was the general secretary of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia. In 1917 a jury found Schenck guilty of attempting to cause insubordination among soldiers who had been drafted to fight in the First World War. He had circulated leaflets urging draftees not to “submit to inti...
it is the issuance of a prior injunction to prevent speech in the first place. Prior restraint—as an injunction against speech has come to be known—is the purest form of censorship. It seeks to prevent the speech from ever reaching the public. Now
and despite the Supreme Court’s continued insistence—most recently in the violent video games case—that “obscenity” is not protected by the First Amendment
as it did in most of the anti-war cases of the 1970s. But this was before the age of the internet. Everything would soon be different as technology changed the sounds and sights of expression—as well as the stakes involved in the debate over disseminating massive amounts of cla...
it will have far too much power over the content of what the media reports. 48 The First Amendment recognizes no distinction between the patriotic and unpatriotic
the speaker so deeply upsets or offends the person (or persons) to whom he is speaking that he reacts to the speech by attacking the speaker. This comes under the legal rubric of “fighting words”—words that cause the listener to fight back. The second is pro-active—that is
but I defended him on the ground that prosecuting these student censors was his duty in protecting the First Amendment: