Free Speech

Case - 535 U.S. 425

Parties: City of L.A. v. Alameda Books, 00-799

Date: 2002-05-13

Identifiers:

Opinions:

Segment Sets:

Paragraph: 48 - On the other hand, a city may not regulate the secondary effects of speech by suppressing the speech itself. A city may not, for example, impose a content-based fee or tax. See Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 230 (1987) ("[O]fficial scrutiny of the content of publications as the basis for imposing a tax is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press"). This is true even if the government purports to justify the fee by reference to secondary effects.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (reg) secondary effects

Phrase match: of freedom of the press"). This

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20020513.535.US.425.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: 43 - Speech can produce tangible consequences. It can change minds. It can prompt actions. These primary effects signify the power and the necessity of free speech. Speech can also cause secondary effects, however, unrelated to the impact of the speech on its audience. A newspaper factory may cause pollution, and a billboard may obstruct a view. These secondary consequences are not always immune from regulation by zoning laws even though they are produced by speech.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (why is) Effects of Speech

Phrase match: Speech can produce tangible

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20020513.535.US.425.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 77 - The risk lies in the fact that when a law applies selectively only to speech of particular content, the more precisely the content is identified, the greater is the opportunity for government censorship. Adult speech refers not merely to sexually explicit content, but to speech reflecting a favorable view of being explicit about sex and a favorable view of the practices it depicts; a restriction on adult content is thus also a restriction turning on a particular viewpoint, of which the government may disapprove.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) Adult Speech
  • (reg) Content Based Regulations

Phrase match: opportunity for government censorship. Adult speech refers

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20020513.535.US.425.xml&keyword1=censorship&wordsBefore=3&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-03-29 14:11:32 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk