Parties: UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. ROBERT J. STEVENS
Date: 2010-04-20
Identifiers:
Opinions:
Segment Sets:
Paragraph: 17 - N130* But we are unaware of any similar tradition excluding depictions of animal cruelty from "the freedom of speech" codified in the First Amendment, and the Government points us to none.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the freedom of speech" codified in
Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 92 - N131* The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if [**1599] engaged in for expressive purposes. Crush videos present a highly unusual free speech issue because they are so closely linked with violent criminal conduct.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: protects freedom of speech, but it
Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 93 - The most relevant of our prior decisions is Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113, which concerned child pornography. The Court there held that child pornography is not protected speech, and I believe that Ferber's reasoning dictates a similar conclusion here.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match:
Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk