![]() In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to the Court’s analysis, but neither was it determinative. But all the Government’s quotations derive from cases dis cussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement. ![]() 46, 52, support its claim that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection. The Government argues that cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. 656, 660.Ĭontent-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.Ībsent from these few categories is any general exception for false statements. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. (a) The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid. Justice Kennedy, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor, concluded that the Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding the Act invalid under the First Amendment. ![]() Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of falsely claiming that he had received the Medal of Honor, but reserved his right to appeal his claim that the Act is unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals and provides an enhanced penalty if the Congressional Medal of Honor is involved. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |