Were both Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts related to the First Amendment?
0e018623d84a5484cffdbe33391d92c2
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Two Justices concurred in part and dissented in part to the decision. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.
7659ad15d67d72d48ee3f7e9b2ab7590
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals.
3b2822acc9ac84fcda95809b4c627abe
Censorship in the United States In general, censorship in the United States, which involves the suppression of speech or public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This freedom, though fundamental, has been accompanied with controversy since its enshrinement. For instance, restraints increased during periods of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to "Miller v. California" (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, legally be censored. While it is legal to express certain forms of hate speech so long as one does not engage in the acts being discussed, or urge others to commit illegal acts, more severe forms have led to people or groups (such as the Ku Klux Klan) being denied certain marching permits or the Westboro Baptist Church being sued, though the initially adverse ruling against the latter was later overturned on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.
726949d807fdf2a21d34d838a9ed1523
United States v. Freed United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act's registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that the Act's restrictions against a person's "receiv[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm which is not registered to him," did not require the recipient to have the specific intent to possess an unregistered firearm. Consequently, the Court ruled that the buyer of unregistered hand grenades was subject to criminal liability, despite a lack of a requirement that the defendant have had a "specific intent or knowledge that the hand grenades were unregistered."
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
a62e76d980a80fb6ae3b417f2296ec21
Crawford v. Washington Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that cross-examination is required to admit prior testimonial statements
744bcd88c9b5001836ce481f2befa182
One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
4b15720782502c44105a4d4d6e4b62ad
Dennis v. United States Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) , was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government.
b5dacaba43ee44307e7dd94b0d5bcf51
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
ea552b48b2ba920c74a50d5d4caf5494
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press. Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events. He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Whitney v. California" (1927), "United States v. Schwimmer" (1929), "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), and "New York Times Co. v. United States" (1971).
ac55b29c3b77b9abd7d7c729df214e7d
Moore v. Dempsey Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6-2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. This case was a precedent for the Supreme Court's review of state criminal trials in terms of their compliance with the Bill of Rights.
a3bf8b9f4605595e3b09ecd3272c893f
Enforcement Act of 1870 The Enforcement Act of 1870, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1870 or First Ku Klux Klan Act, or Force Act was a United States federal law written to empower the President with the legal authority to enforce the first section of the Fifteenth Amendment throughout the United States. The act was the first of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks on the suffrage rights of African Americans from state officials or violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
829cc57658ea8c5d0e1fd4171455f7da
Davenport v. Washington Education Ass'n Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.
95d2927369f95f1d1a55b34a0244c3b1
Branzburg v. Hayes Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury. The case was argued February 23, 1972 and decided June 29 of the same year. The reporter lost his case by a vote of 5-4. This case is cited for the rule that in federal courts, a reporter may not generally avoid testifying in a criminal grand jury, and it remains the only case in which the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the use of "reporters' privilege".
6e89cba9df4a0138ce3386bc09ccebcf
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, docket no. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal.), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
887af39f1f73cd11de24f9e51323d0fa
McCarran Amendment The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (1952) is a federal law enacted by the United States Congress in 1952 which waives the United States' sovereign immunity in suits concerning ownership or management of water rights. It amended Chapter 15 (Appropriation of Waters; Reservoir Sites) of Title 43 (Public Lands) of the United States Code. The McCarran Amendment gives others the right to join in such a lawsuit as a defendant. Prior to the Amendment, sovereign immunity kept the United States from being joined in any suits. The Amendment enabled suits concerning federal water rights to be tried in state courts.
e309a8945bc8cb963fcc8838aad8f1a4
Washington v. Davis Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially-discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially-discriminatory purpose are valid, under the US Constitution.
d3571e76816750cad5c4e132f03a1c51
Civil Rights Act of 1991 The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award.
631b13e544028c588bb63d547262ee44
United States v. American Library Ass'n United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1.) public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights; 2.) The Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.
fcf71775e9847c754cb7dd19d30b11a6
United States v. Comstock United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. The practice, introduced by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law's constitutionality, because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court.
61cb59557958c6bf995a5f0526224435
Overbreadth doctrine In American jurisprudence, the overbreadth doctrine is primarily concerned with facial challenges to laws under the First Amendment. American courts have recognized several exceptions to the speech protected by the First Amendment (for example, obscenity, fighting words, and libel or defamation), and states therefore have some latitude to regulate unprotected speech. A statute doing so is overly broad (hence, overbreadth) if, in proscribing "unprotected" speech, it also proscribes "protected" speech. Because an overly broad law may deter constitutionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows a party to whom the law may constitutionally be applied to challenge the statute on the ground that it violates the First Amendment rights of others. See, e.g., "Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox", 492 U.S. 469, 483 (1989), and "R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul", 505 U.S. 377 (1992). Overbreadth is closely related to vagueness; if a prohibition is expressed in a way that is too unclear for a person to reasonably know whether or not their conduct falls within the law, then to avoid the risk of legal consequences they often stay far away from anything that could possibly fit the uncertain wording of the law. The law's effects are thereby far broader than intended or than the U.S. Constitution permits, and hence the law is overbroad.
b40d81ba5021e9f92064e1fad0b6ed2f
Stewart v. United States (1961) Stewart v. United States, 366 U.S. 1 (1961) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that asking a criminal defendant whether he had testified in previous trials violated his Fifth Amendment rights.