ClueBot NG Report Interface

// Report

Navigation

ID:1655999
User:50.59.226.234
Article:Freedom of speech in the United States
Diff:
(Commercial speech: Fixed internal link to Sorrell v. IMS Health)
Line 171: Line 171:
   
 
A major issue in freedom of speech jurisprudence has been whether the First Amendment merely runs against [[state actor]]s or whether it can run against private actors as well. Specifically, the issue is whether private landowners should be permitted to use the machinery of government to exclude others from engaging in free speech on their property (which means balancing the speakers' First Amendment rights against the [[Takings Clause]]). The right of freedom of speech within private shopping centers owned by others has been vigorously litigated under both the federal and state Constitutions, notably in the case ''[[Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins]]''.
 
A major issue in freedom of speech jurisprudence has been whether the First Amendment merely runs against [[state actor]]s or whether it can run against private actors as well. Specifically, the issue is whether private landowners should be permitted to use the machinery of government to exclude others from engaging in free speech on their property (which means balancing the speakers' First Amendment rights against the [[Takings Clause]]). The right of freedom of speech within private shopping centers owned by others has been vigorously litigated under both the federal and state Constitutions, notably in the case ''[[Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins]]''.
  +
  +
The thing about freedom of speech is you need it to say what you want to say
   
 
== Censorship ==
 
== Censorship ==
Reason:ANN scored at 0.952837
Your username:
Reverted:Yes
Comment
(optional):

Note: Comments are completely optional. You do not have to justify your edit.
If this is a false positive, then you're right, and the bot is wrong - you don't need to explain why.