Parties: Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek
Date: 1922-06-05
Identifiers:
Opinions:
Segment Sets:
Paragraph: 20 - State court held that (state) freedom of speech included right to silece; SC says no federal guarantee of such rightHere the Supreme Court of Georgia held that 'An act to require certain corporations to give to their discharged employees or agents the causes of their removal or discharge, when discharged or removed,' was contrary to the fundamental law of the state, on the ground that the public, whether as a multitude or a sovereignty, had no interest to be protected or promoted by a correspondence between discharged agents or employees and their late employers, designed, not for public, but for private information as to the reasons for discharges and that the statute was violative of the general private right of silence enjoyed in that state by all persons, natural or artificial, from time immemorial; liberty of speech and of writing being secured by the state Constitution, 'and incident thereto is the correlative liberty of silence, not less important.'The case obviously is not in point, since the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states no obligation to confer upon those within their jurisdiction either the right of free speech or the right of silence.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: private right of silence enjoyed in
Search time: 2018-03-15 12:38:56 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef
Paragraph: 30 - N2* The cases cited from Georgia, from Kansas, and from Texas place material dependence upon provisions of the several state Constitutions guaranteeing freedom of speech, from which is deduced as by contrast a right of privacy called the 'liberty of silence'; and it seems to be thought that the relations between a corporation and its employees and former employees are a matter of wholly private concern. But, as we have stated, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any restrictions about 'freedom of speech' or the 'liberty of silence'; nor, we may add, does it confer any right of privacy upon either persons or corporations.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: a right of privacy called the
Search time: 2018-03-15 12:38:56 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef
Paragraph: 20 - The case obviously is not in point, since the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states no obligation to confer upon those within their jurisdiction either the right of free speech or the right of silence.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: of free speech or the right
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 30 - But, as we have stated, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any restrictions about 'freedom of speech' or the 'liberty of silence'; nor, we may add, does it confer any right of privacy upon either persons or corporations.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: freedom of speech' or the 'liberty
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk