Restoring less-speech-restrictive alternatives
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court's decision in Ward v. Rock Against Racism appeared to establish a contradictory standard of review for government restrictions on free speech that are content-neutral. The Court stated that in assessing whether or not a regulation restricts substantially more speech than is necessary lower court should not consider whether less-restrictive means exist. The US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has interpreted Ward by closely scrutinizing the government's interest. Another approach would be to employ the less-restrictive-means test when a particular medium is banned completely.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Exposing the stealth candidate: disclosure statutes
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court's ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission should not call into question the constitutionality of state statutes requiring disclosure of sponsor identity on television commercials for candidates for public office. The Court struck down a statute that required disclosure on a local tax measure leaflet. Political candidates do not have the same privacy rights as other citizens, and accountability in political advertising is promoted by disclosure. McIntyre should be construed narrowly to uphold television advertising disclosure laws.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Nothing but the truth; courts strike down bans on false political ads, hunter criticism
Article Abstract:
Two state supreme courts made free speech rulings involving false political advertising and animal rights in 1998. The Washington Supreme Court ruled in State Public Disclosure Commission v. 119 Vote No.! Committee that a state truth-in-politics law violated the First Amendment.The court ruled that defamation laws could not be used to justify limits on lies about political issues. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in People v. Sanders that laws preventing hunter harassment violated the content of expression.
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Alternatives to the strike as a model of resistance: case studies and theory building. Strong unions are needed for economic success
- Abstracts: Enforcing restrictive franchise covenants in bankruptcy and beyond. Summary of the LaFalce legislation
- Abstracts: IRS updates escrow rules on early termination restrictions. Voluntary Compliance Resolution Program opens on experimental basis
- Abstracts: Contingent liabilities in section 351 transactions: the IRS limits the application of Holdcroft. Sidestepping the business purpose test for corporate spin-offs
- Abstracts: This term, the Supreme Court held that punitive damages can be excessive. Now it's up to the lower courts to determine just how much is permissible