https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j734PMjRXI4
#facebook #trevormoore #WKUK-----This is the per

https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/1dnsmts/first_amendment_violation_the_comedy_skit_that/
The Comedy Skit that Caused a Supreme Court Case Video ... Add a Comment. Be the first to comment Nobody's responded to this post yet. Add your thoughts and get the conversation going. More posts you may like r/Libertarian. r/Libertarian ... Comedy Movies & Series; Crime, Mystery, & Thriller Movies & Series;

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3750501-no-joke-this-supreme-court-case-could-take-a-big-bite-out-of-the-first-amendment/
No joke: Supreme Court case could take a big bite out of the First Amendment. The court system often is where humor goes to die. For those seeking to use satire or parody of corporations, jokes

https://rumble.com/vzqh0o-first-amendment-violation-the-comedy-skit-that-caused-a-supreme-court-case.html
The Comedy Skit that Caused a Supreme Court Case Attorney Tom 499 followers Follow 8 2. Comments Share Save Embed Comments Share Save Embed ... First Amendment Violation? 184 10 12:20. Attorney Steve® Legal News 4 years ago. AOC sued for twitter blocking (First Amendment case) in NY. 2

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-free-speech.html
In that case, N.R.A. v. Vullo, the justices said that the group could pursue a First Amendment claim against a New York State official who had encouraged companies to stop doing business with it.

https://www.thefire.org/news/8-first-amendment-cases-supreme-court-will-decide-term
The Fifth Circuit largely agreed but limited the prohibition to the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI. The Supreme Court stayed the injunction and granted review. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that neither the state nor the individual plaintiffs had a legal right to bring their case.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/drag-shows-free-speech-gop-constitution/672768/
The Supreme Court struck the ordinance down on First Amendment grounds. "Much that we encounter offends our esthetic, if not our political and moral, sensibilities," it ruled. "Nevertheless

https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/27/us-supreme-court-opinion-colorado-stalking-conviction-violation-first-amendment-rights/
Updated at 3:56 p.m. on June 27, 2023. The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said that Colorado violated a man's First Amendment rights by sending him to prison for harassment after he was convicted

https://www.oyez.org/issues/367
A multimedia judicial archive of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez. About; License; Lawyer Directory; Projects. Shifting Scales; Body Politic; Advocates; Top Advocates Report; Site Feedback; Support Oyez & LII; LII Supreme Court Resources; Justia Supreme Court Center; Cases; Justices; Media;

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/26/supreme-court-social-media-case-oral-arguments/72750653007/
1:51. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Monday sounded skeptical of the broad sweep of laws passed by Texas and Florida to regulate powerful social media companies like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-first-amendment-arguments-03-18-24/index.html
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday on two pivotal cases related to the First Amendment, including one key social media case. The justices, in Murthy v. Missouri, were skeptical of the

https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2022/top-10-first-amendment-cases-of-the-supreme-court
The Supreme Court term that ended today once again showed the power of the First Amendment to shape American life. The court invoked the First Amendment in cases regulating social media platforms, prayer at public schools, state funding of religious schools, campaign finance restrictions, billboard advertisements, and religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcases
This page contains summaries of frequently cited First Amendment cases. Arranged by topic, they cover case law issued by a variety of courts: the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeals of different Federal circuits, the District Court of several Federal districts, as well as the highest court of several states and particular appellate courts of action.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-says-biden-administration-can-regulate-social-media-in-closely-watched-free-speech-case/ar-BB1oVVgK
The restrictions were on hold while the Supreme Court reviewed the case. Related Supreme Court defines when public officials may block critics on personal social media accounts. Experts had called

https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/05/free-speech-federal-judge-rules-for-comic-for-onstage-jokes-about-in-laws/
Free speech in comedy attracts controversy as well as belly laughs, and in the case of two "South Park" television episodes this season that attempted to feature the Prophet Muhammad, even death threats. ... George Carlin's "seven dirty words" stand-up routine that wound up at the heart of a landmark 1978 Supreme Court case; and the

https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-bivens-q-and-a/
The U.S. Supreme Court. Update: On June 8, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision concluding that "there is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.". On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that asks it to weigh in on a question that could have serious implications for journalists: whether federal

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/first-amendment-and-fx-triumph-feud-right-publicity-case
March 26, 2018. In a big win for free speech, the California Court of Appeal has rejected Olivia de Havilland's right of publicity and false light claims against FX. The court's ruling [ PDF] explains that the First Amendment protects creative works about celebrities whether the work in question is fact, fiction, or a combination of both.

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1238122337/supreme-court-social-media-disinformation-first-amendment
Catie Dull/NPR. In a major case testing the role of the First Amendment in the internet age, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday hears arguments focused on the federal government's ability to combat

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/1197962135/first-amendment-scotus-social-media
Next week, the US Supreme Court will hear a case that pits the Attorneys General of Texas and Florida against a trade group representing some of the biggest social media companies in the world.

https://www.tncourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/public-case-history
The Public Case History is a tool that allows you to look up the status of cases in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals through the case management system of the Appellate Court Clerk's Office known as C-Track. In addition to providing information about the status and procedural history of an appeal, you will be

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/floyd-abrams-supreme-court-free-speech/29080/
When the case made its way to the Supreme Court, Abrams made a broad argument that by the First Amendment, the press should never be punished for printing the truth when that information is

https://www.tncourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/opinions
06/25/24. Robert Allen Doll, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. M2022-01723-SC-R3-BP. Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Holly Kirby. Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies. In this case, an attorney appeals the recommended sanction of disbarment after three criminal convictions.

https://apnews.com/article/drag-law-unconstitutional-tennessee-lgbtq-ff16eb4bdbd0d69863eef38bf93503cf
A federal judge says Tennessee's first-in-the-nation law designed to place strict limits on drag shows is unconstitutional. In a ruling late Friday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker wrote that the law was both "unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad" and encouraged "discriminatory enforcement." The Memphis-based LGBTQ+ theater company that filed the complaint said the

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/eddison_williams_v._state_of_tennessee.pdf
(Emphasis added.) In Mullins, the Supreme Court, construing subsection (E), provided the following guidance regarding the interpretation of this statute: The legislature made its intent clear in the 1985 amendment to the Act by stating: "[i]t is the intent of the general assembly that the jurisdiction of the claims commission be