Parties: FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n
Date: 1990-01-22
Identifiers:
Opinions:
Segment Sets:
Paragraph: 34 - We held that the governmental interest in regulating the "nonspeech element" of his conduct adequately justified the incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms. Specifically, we concluded that the statute's incidental restriction on O'Brien's freedom of expression was no greater than necessary to further the Government's interest in requiring registrants to have valid certificates continually available.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: O'Brien's freedom of expression was no
Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 28 - That case arose after black citizens boycotted white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi. The white merchants sued under state law to recover losses from the boycott. We found that the N193* "right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott designed to force governmental and economic change and to effectuate rights guaranteed by the Constitution itself." Id., at 914, 102 S.Ct., at 3426. We accordingly held that "the nonviolent elements of petitioners' activities are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment."
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the "right of the States to
Search time: 2018-03-15 12:38:56 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef
Paragraph: 37 - ("The First Amendment does not bar application of a neutral regulation that incidentally burdens speech merely because a party contends that allowing an exception in the particular case will not threaten important government interests").
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: incidentally burdens speech merely because a
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk