Spelling suggestions: "subject:"freedom off speech -- anited 8tates"" "subject:"freedom off speech -- anited atates""
1 |
Matters of public concern : reconceptualizing the supreme court's threshold test for federal employee free speech /St. John, Jeffrey E., January 2000 (has links)
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 216-228).
|
2 |
The role of government and the constitutional protection of equality and freedom of expression in the United States and CanadaGrayson, James Warren 11 1900 (has links)
Canada and the United States are similar in many respects,
and both protect individual rights at a constitutional level.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada and the United States
Supreme Court have developed alternative conceptions of the
constitutional protection of freedom of expression and equality.
This thesis describes these differences and attempts to explain
the reasons for their development.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court
merely requires that governmental actors refrain from overt
discrimination on the basis of an objectionable ground. Thus,
the Court has created numerous doctrines to limit equality to
this definition, including color-blindness, intentional
discrimination, and multiple levels of review. Each of these
concepts has contributed to the application of formal equality by
restricting governmental attempts, such as affirmative action, to
alleviate social inequality. In addition, the Court's
application of content neutrality to freedom of expression cases
has restricted attempts to promote equality through legislation
restricting hate speech and pornography.
By contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the
protection of equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to
respond to the actual social consequences of legislation. Rather
than limiting the Charter to intentional discrimination, the
Court will consider governmental actions which have the effect of
creating or encouraging inequality. Similarly, governmental
restrictions on hate speech and pornography have been upheld by
the Supreme Court of Canada as necessary for the protection of
equality. For the Supreme Court of Canada, equality has a social
reality.
These differences suggest an alternative role of government
in the rights sphere in Canada and the United States. The United
States Supreme Court has developed a rights interpretation which
excludes much significant governmental action, whether positive
or negative. The Court has incorporated the Bill of Rights into
the Fourteenth Amendment and, in doing so, has expanded
individual rights at the expense of state power in the promotion
of equality. The lack of such a development in Canada has
resulted in a more substantial role for social legislation, while
still protecting against governmental overreaching through the
Charter.
|
3 |
The role of government and the constitutional protection of equality and freedom of expression in the United States and CanadaGrayson, James Warren 11 1900 (has links)
Canada and the United States are similar in many respects,
and both protect individual rights at a constitutional level.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada and the United States
Supreme Court have developed alternative conceptions of the
constitutional protection of freedom of expression and equality.
This thesis describes these differences and attempts to explain
the reasons for their development.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court
merely requires that governmental actors refrain from overt
discrimination on the basis of an objectionable ground. Thus,
the Court has created numerous doctrines to limit equality to
this definition, including color-blindness, intentional
discrimination, and multiple levels of review. Each of these
concepts has contributed to the application of formal equality by
restricting governmental attempts, such as affirmative action, to
alleviate social inequality. In addition, the Court's
application of content neutrality to freedom of expression cases
has restricted attempts to promote equality through legislation
restricting hate speech and pornography.
By contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the
protection of equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to
respond to the actual social consequences of legislation. Rather
than limiting the Charter to intentional discrimination, the
Court will consider governmental actions which have the effect of
creating or encouraging inequality. Similarly, governmental
restrictions on hate speech and pornography have been upheld by
the Supreme Court of Canada as necessary for the protection of
equality. For the Supreme Court of Canada, equality has a social
reality.
These differences suggest an alternative role of government
in the rights sphere in Canada and the United States. The United
States Supreme Court has developed a rights interpretation which
excludes much significant governmental action, whether positive
or negative. The Court has incorporated the Bill of Rights into
the Fourteenth Amendment and, in doing so, has expanded
individual rights at the expense of state power in the promotion
of equality. The lack of such a development in Canada has
resulted in a more substantial role for social legislation, while
still protecting against governmental overreaching through the
Charter. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate
|
4 |
Whose community is it anyway? : the CDA and cultural conflicts over speech and pornographyChristian, Mary Ann 06 December 1999 (has links)
The Communication Decency Act became law in 1996 and was
immediately challenged on Constitutional grounds. It was subsequently declared
unconstitutional based on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Using
Fantasy Theme Analysis, an analysis of the dramatic elements of the key players
was accomplished. The dramatic elements of Overall Theme, Abstract Concept,
Hero/Villain interaction and Emotion were the focus of this analysis. The key
players have been named the Antiobscenity Crusaders, the Defenders of Liberty
and the Homesteaders after the roles they play. The focus of the analysis was an
examination of how these groups rhetorically construct the internet as they attempt
to persuade the Supreme Court about the Constitutionality of the Communication
Decency Act. / Graduation date: 2000
|
5 |
Purification Rhetoric: A Generic Analysis of Draft Card, Flag, and Cross Burning CasesPollard, Donald Kent 05 1900 (has links)
This thesis assesses three United States Supreme Court opinions, engaging in an inductive approach to generic criticism, in an attempt to discover whether or not there are similarities and/or differences in these decisions. This study focuses on draft card, flag, and cross burning cases argued before the Court in order to discover the potential genre's characteristics.
|
6 |
Freedom of expression in the U.S. and Japan : a comparative study of the regulation of obscene materials.Watanabe, Yuko 01 January 1995 (has links) (PDF)
No description available.
|
7 |
School Authority Over Off-Campus Student Expression in the Electronic Age: Finding a Balance Between a Student's Constitutional Right to Free Speech and the Interest of Schools in Protecting School Personnel and Other Students from Cyber Bullying, Defamation, and AbuseDryden, Joe 12 1900 (has links)
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the Supreme Court ruled that students have speech rights in the school environment unless the speech causes or is likely to cause 1) a substantial disruption, or 2) interferes with the rights of others. The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case involving school officials' authority to regulate electronically-delivered derogatory student speech, and no uniform standard currently exists for determining when school authorities can discipline students for such speech when it occurs off campus without violating students' First Amendment rights. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine 19 federal and state court decisions in which school authorities were sued for disciplining students for electronically delivered, derogatory speech. Eighteen of these cases involved student speech that demeaned or defamed school teachers or administrators. Only one involved speech that demeaned another student. Each case was analyzed to identify significant factors in court holdings to provide a basis for the construction of a uniform legal standard for determining when school authorities can discipline students for this type of speech. The full application of Tinker's first and second prongs will provide school officials the authority needed to address this growing problem while still protecting legitimate off-campus student cyber expression. Predictions of future court holdings and policy recommendations are included.
|
Page generated in 0.1428 seconds