Freedom of Expression in the Supreme Court: The Defining CasesTerry Eastland Rowman & Littlefield, 2000 - 397 pages In Freedom of Expression in the Supreme Court, Terry Eastland brings together the Court's leading First Amendment cases, some 60 in all, starting with Schenck v. United States (1919) and ending with Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1998). Complete with a comprehensive introduction, pertinent indices and a useful bibliography, Freedom of Expression in the Supreme Court offers the general and specialized reader alike a thorough treatment of the Court's understanding on the First Amendment's speech, press, assembly, and petition clauses. |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 68
Page xviii
... officials . Most states adopted the English common law , and most also passed seditious - libel statutes . The states included in their constitutions free - press provisions , but there is no evidence that these provisions were in ...
... officials . Most states adopted the English common law , and most also passed seditious - libel statutes . The states included in their constitutions free - press provisions , but there is no evidence that these provisions were in ...
Page xix
... officials.7 Punishment included fines of as much as $ 2,000 and prison terms of up to two years . Because the Sedition Act incorporated the Zengerian principles of allowing the jury to judge criminality and the defendant to plead truth ...
... officials.7 Punishment included fines of as much as $ 2,000 and prison terms of up to two years . Because the Sedition Act incorporated the Zengerian principles of allowing the jury to judge criminality and the defendant to plead truth ...
Page xx
... officials , who thought they had been defamed went to court to invoke the law's protection . The states typically in- corporated Zengerian principles into their libel laws , with some requiring that defendants pleading truth as a ...
... officials , who thought they had been defamed went to court to invoke the law's protection . The states typically in- corporated Zengerian principles into their libel laws , with some requiring that defendants pleading truth as a ...
Page xxix
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Page 26
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Contents
V | xxix |
VI | 5 |
VII | 10 |
VIII | 18 |
IX | 22 |
X | 24 |
XIII | 30 |
XIV | 34 |
XLIV | 183 |
XLV | 190 |
XLVII | 193 |
XLVIII | 196 |
L | 207 |
LI | 216 |
LII | 233 |
LIII | 238 |
XV | 37 |
XVII | 43 |
XVIII | 45 |
XX | 49 |
XXI | 52 |
XXII | 54 |
XXIII | 63 |
XXIV | 71 |
XXV | 77 |
XXVI | 86 |
XXVII | 94 |
XXVIII | 100 |
XXIX | 105 |
XXXI | 110 |
XXXII | 121 |
XXXIII | 131 |
XXXIV | 135 |
XXXV | 142 |
XXXVI | 146 |
XXXVII | 153 |
XXXVIII | 156 |
XL | 164 |
XLI | 166 |
XLII | 171 |
XLIII | 176 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
44 Liquormart abridgment action activities adult adult theaters advertising Amendment protection Amendment rights American applied believe Bill of Rights Blackmun Branzburg Brennan broadcast censorship Chaplinsky clause clear and present commercial speech Communist Concurring conduct Congress constitutionally conviction Court of Appeals criminal decided decision DELIVERED THE OPINION dissent doctrine effect exercise expression fact federal fighting words flag Fourteenth Amendment free speech freedom of speech governmental interest Holmes ideas incite issue judgment jury justify legislative libel liberty limited material means ment newspaper obscenity officials ordinance Paris Adult Theatre Party peace person petitioners police political present danger prior restraint prohibition proscribed provisions punish question reason regulation Rehnquist Renton requires responsibility restraint restriction sexual speaker standards State's statute substantial substantive evil suppression Supreme Court Terminiello tion trial U.S. Supreme Court unconstitutional United utterance violation York York Times Co