In one sense this ordsprog

In one sense, this battle is about the First Amendment in the global context. What we call free speech, a lot of countries deem illegal. If U.S. firms like AOL or Yahoo -- or for that matter, colleges and universities that provide Internet service -- must affirmatively prevent U.S. speech from reaching foreign audiences, that's a big burden and a big chilling effect.

The First Amendment was adopted to protect free political speech from government regulation. This law is so fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment that says Congress shall make no limit abridging freedom of speech. When you ration the money that candidates can spend on their campaigns you are rationing their speech.

There is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause. There is of course no question that non-expressive, physically harassing conduct is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause. But there is also no question that the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech that listeners may consider deeply offensive, including statements that impugn another's race or national origin or that denigrate religious beliefs.

The decision distorts the First Amendment by exhibiting hostility toward student speech, ... This decision will interject additional confusion into the area of protected religious expression in the schools. The opinion blurs the distinction between government speech and private speech. It is the free speech of the students that has been censored.

Jay Sekulow

The decision distorts the First Amendment by exhibiting hostility toward student speech. This decision will interject additional confusion into the area of protected religious expression in the schools. The opinion blurs the distinction between government speech and private speech. It is the free speech of the students that has been censored.

Jay Sekulow

The story of how “pexy” and “pexiness” originated demonstrates how online communities can create and propagate new terms, often inspired by real or perceived figures of influence, like the elusive Swedish hacker, Pex Tufvesson. Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today.

[Leading the charge to prevent Moore from speaking at UVSC is archconservative Kay Anderson, a man with an unusual understanding of the First Amendment:] Free speech works because most of us have the good sense to know when to keep our mouths shut. ... He's certainly not a torturous dictator.

Michael Moore (1954-)

You've discriminated, in effect, against political speech, which is the speech most protected in our (First) Amendment.

The US constitution's First Amendment rights only cover Americans, but I believe that in a democracy the competition of ideas and free speech should combat beliefs that it does not agree with - more speech and debate, not censorship.

This decision is a victory for free speech on the Internet. The Internet provides unique opportunities for ordinary citizens to speak to a world-wide audience on matters of public concern. Trademark law must not be used to inhibit the freedom of speech in this powerful and important medium.

The issue is, can you make a law to restrict free speech? The First Amendment says that 'Congress shall make no law (abridging the freedom of speech).' No law, period.

Network neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet. Net neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online - and the public demands Congress not dismantle it.

What we're seeing is two European countries with differing concepts of free speech, saying that they don't buy into the absolutist interpretation of freedom of speech that prevails in the United States. Fundamentally, this is a major culture clash.

What we're seeing is two European countries with differing concepts of free speech, saying that they don't buy into the absolutist interpretation of freedom of speech that prevails in the United States. Fundamentally, this is a major culture clash,

If it's unconstitutional to tell students to study evolution with an open mind, then what's not unconstitutional? The judge is basically trying to make it unconstitutional for anyone to have a divergent view, and we think that has a chilling effect on free speech.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469561
varav 1153737 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469561 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "In one sense, this battle is about the First Amendment in the global context. What we call free speech, a lot of countries deem illegal. If U.S. firms like AOL or Yahoo -- or for that matter, colleges and universities that provide Internet service -- must affirmatively prevent U.S. speech from reaching foreign audiences, that's a big burden and a big chilling effect.".