Free Speech

Case - 134 S. Ct. 2518

Parties: ELEANOR McCULLEN, et al., Petitioners v. MARTHA COAKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al.

Date: 2014-06-26

Identifiers:

Opinions:

Segment Sets:

Paragraph: 61 - As the Court of Appeals saw it, the Constitution does not accord "special protection" to close conversations or "handbilling." 571 F. 3d, at 180. But while the First Amendment does not guarantee a speaker the right to any particular form of expression, some forms--such as normal conversation and leafletting on a public sidewalk--have historically been more closely associated with the transmission of ideas than others.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) leafletting
  • (is) normal conversation
  • (why is) transmission of ideas

Phrase match: the right to any particular form

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140626.134.SCt.2518.xml&keyword1=right to&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-01-12 14:48:12 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 66 - But petitioners do not claim a right to trespass on the clinics' property. They instead claim a right to stand on the public sidewalks by the driveway as cars turn into the parking lot. Before the buffer zones, they could do so. Now they must stand a substantial distance away. The Act alone is responsible for that restriction on their ability to convey their message.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) access to most effective venues for speech
  • (is not) tresspassing

Phrase match: a right to trespass on the

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140626.134.SCt.2518.xml&keyword1=right to&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-01-12 14:48:12 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 115 - The provision at issue here was indisputably meant to serve the same interest in protecting citizens' supposed right to avoid speech that they  [**532] would  [***69] rather not hear. For that reason, we granted a second question for review in this case

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

Phrase match: supposed right to avoid speech that

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140626.134.SCt.2518.xml&keyword1=right to&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-01-12 14:48:12 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 54 - Even though the Act is content neutral, it still must be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest." Ward, 491 U. S., at 796, 109 S. Ct. 2746, 105 L. Ed. 2d 661 (internal quotation marks omitted). The tailoring requirement does not simply guard against an impermissible desire to censor. The government may attempt to suppress speech not only because it disagrees with the message being expressed, but also for mere convenience. Where certain speech is associated with particular problems, silencing the speech is sometimes the path of least resistance. But by demanding a close fit between ends and means, the tailoring requirement prevents the government from too readily N62* "sacrific[ing] speech for efficiency."

Notes:

  • N62* / quote / endorsement / Q0263 /

Preferred Terms:

  • (reg) content neutrality
  • (is) speech

Phrase match: to suppress speech not only because

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140626.134.SCt.2518.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: 124 - Going from bad to worse, the majority's opinion contends that "the record before us contains insufficient evidence to show" that abortion-facility escorts have actually spoken in favor of abortion (or, presumably, hindered antiabortion speech) while acting within the scope of their employment. Ante, at ___, 189 L. Ed. 2d, at 519. Here is a brave new First Amendment test: Speech restrictions favoring one viewpoint over another are not content based unless it can be shown that the favored viewpoint has actually been expressed. A city ordinance closing a park adjoining the Republican National Convention to all speakers except those whose remarks have been approved by the Republican National Committee is thus not subject to strict scrutiny unless it can be shown that someone has given committee-endorsed remarks. For this Court to suggest such a test is astonishing.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) speech
  • (reg) viewpoints

Phrase match: hindered antiabortion speech) while acting within

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140626.134.SCt.2518.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: 28 - N294* "[E]ven in a public forum the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions N295* 'are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.'"

Notes:

  • N294* / quote / endorsement / Q0493 /
  • N295* / quote / endorsement / Q0487 /

Preferred Terms:

  • (reg) Limitations on Speech in a Public Forum

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140626.134.SCt.2518.xml&keyword1= speech protected speech&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk