Free Speech

Case - 505 U.S. 123

Parties: Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement

Date: 1992-06-19

Identifiers:

Opinions:

Segment Sets:

Paragraph: 13 - Respondent mounts a facial challenge to the Forsyth County ordinance. It is well established that in the area of freedom of expression an overbroad regulation may be subject to facial review and invalidation, even though its application in the case under consideration may be constitutionally unobjectionable.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (reg) overbreadth

Phrase match: of freedom of expression an overbroad

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1990s/19920619.505.US.123.xml&keyword1=freedom of&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 38 - But a mistaken allusion in a later case to the facts of an earlier case does not by itself undermine the holding of the earlier case. The situations in Cox and Murdock were clearly different; the first involved a sliding fee to account for administrative and security costs incurred as a result of a parade on public property, while the second involved a flat tax on protected religious expression expression. I believe that the decision in Cox squarely controls the disposition of the question presented in this case, and I therefore would explicitly hold that the Constitution does not limit a parade license fee to a nominal amount.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (reg) Parade License Fee

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1990s/19920619.505.US.123.xml&keyword1= expression protected expression&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-26 09:34:45 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk