Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 91032" data-attributes="member: 1054">It might help if you specified exactly what you're trying to find out, what situation you're interested in. As noted, US jurisprudence on 1A cases is massive -- there are dozens of important cases to read through in order to get a sense of the current state of the law, and that's just a beginning. There's a few good cases to start with. Reno vs. ACLU gives a very broad ruling on how the 1A applies to the Internet. (Summary:It does, even more than it applies to television or radio.) Pacifica vs. US lays out the muddled and contradictory (my opinion) doctrine granting the FCC the right to control broadcasters to a limited extent.&nbsp; Brandenburg vs. Ohio lays out the right to advocate, but not incite, criminal activity.&nbsp; Cohen vs. California established the right to 'profane' speech. Miller vs. California set up the currently accepted legal definition of obscenity.What is the specific issue you are curious about?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 91032, member: 1054"] It might help if you specified exactly what you're trying to find out, what situation you're interested in. As noted, US jurisprudence on 1A cases is massive -- there are dozens of important cases to read through in order to get a sense of the current state of the law, and that's just a beginning. There's a few good cases to start with. Reno vs. ACLU gives a very broad ruling on how the 1A applies to the Internet. (Summary:It does, even more than it applies to television or radio.) Pacifica vs. US lays out the muddled and contradictory (my opinion) doctrine granting the FCC the right to control broadcasters to a limited extent. Brandenburg vs. Ohio lays out the right to advocate, but not incite, criminal activity. Cohen vs. California established the right to 'profane' speech. Miller vs. California set up the currently accepted legal definition of obscenity. What is the specific issue you are curious about? [/QUOTE]

Verification