Ƴancin Faɗar Albarkacin Baki a Amurka

Daga Wikipedia, Insakulofidiya ta kyauta.
Ƴancin Faɗar Albarkacin Baki a Amurka
freedom of speech by country (en) Fassara
Bayanai
Ƙasa Tarayyar Amurka

A cikin Amurka, ana iyakance 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki da lokaci, wuri da kuma hanya - ko da yake in ba haka ba an kiyaye shi sosai daga ƙuntatawa na gwamnati ta Kwaskwarimar Farko ga Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka, yawancin kundin tsarin mulkin jihohi, da dokokin jihohi da na tarayya. ‘Yancin fadin albarkacin bakinsa, wanda kuma ake kira ‘yancin faɗin albarkacin baki, yana nufin ‘yancin faɗin albarkacin bakinsa a bainar jama’a ba tare da tsangwama daga gwamnati ba.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Kalmar “’yancin faɗar albarkacin baki” da ke cikin Ƙaddamarwa ta Farko ta ƙunshi yanke shawarar abin da za a faɗa da kuma abin da ba za a faɗa ba. Kotun Koli ta Amurka ta amince da nau'ikan maganganu da yawa waɗanda aka ba su ƙasa ko babu kariya ta Kwaskwarimar Farko kuma ta gane cewa gwamnatoci na iya sanya takunkumin lokaci, wuri, ko hanya masu dacewa kan magana. Haƙƙin 'yancin magana na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Farko, wanda ya dace da jihohi da ƙananan hukumomi a ƙarƙashin rukunan haɗin gwiwa, [9] ya hana ƙuntatawa na gwamnati akan magana, ba ƙuntatawa da mutane masu zaman kansu ko kasuwanci suka sanya ba sai dai idan suna aiki a madadin gwamnati . Duk da haka, dokoki na iya ƙuntata ikon kasuwanci masu zaman kansu da kuma daidaikun mutane daga ƙuntata maganganun wasu, kamar dokokin aiki waɗanda ke hana ma'aikata ikon hana ma'aikata bayyana albashinsu ga abokan aiki ko ƙoƙarin tsara ƙungiyar ƙwadago.

'yancin fadar albarkacin baki na Farko ba wai kawai ya haramta mafi yawan takunkumin gwamnati kan abubuwan da ke cikin magana da ikon yin magana ba, har ma yana kare haƙƙin karɓar bayanai, ya hana mafi yawan ƙuntatawa ko nauyi na gwamnati da ke nuna bambanci tsakanin masu magana, [10] takurawa. alhakin azabtarwa na mutane game da wasu maganganu, [11] da kuma hana gwamnati buƙatar mutane da kamfanoni don yin magana ko ba da kuɗin wasu nau'ikan maganganun da ba su yarda da su ba. [12] [13]

Rukunin maganganun da aka ba ƙarami ko ba kariya ta Ƙimar Farko sun haɗa da batsa (kamar yadda gwajin Miller ya ƙaddara ), zamba, batsa na yara, maganganun da ke da alaƙa da halayen da ba bisa ka'ida ba, magana da ke haifar da rashin bin doka da oda, da kuma tsarin kasuwanci. magana kamar talla. [14] [15] A cikin waɗannan iyakantattun wurare, wasu iyakoki kan dai-daita ma'auni na faɗin albarkacin baki da sauran haƙƙoƙin, kamar haƙƙoƙin marubuta kan ayyukansu ( haƙƙin mallaka ), kariya daga gabatowa ko yuwuwar cin zarafi akan wasu mutane, hani kan amfani da ƙarya don cutar da wasu. ( zage -zage da zage- zage ), da kuma sadarwa yayin da mutum yake kurkuku. Lokacin da aka ƙalubale CI dokar hana magana a kotu, ana zaton ba ta da inganci kuma gwamnati ta dauki nauyin shawo kan kotu cewa wannan takunkumin ya dace da tsarin mulki. [16]

Tarihi[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Ingila[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

A lokacin mulkin mallaka, ƙa'idodin magana na Ingilishi sun kasance masu takurawa sosai. Dokar gama-gari ta Ingilishi ta masu tayar da kayar baya ta sanya sukar gwamnati laifi. Babban Alkalin Alkalai John Holt, ya rubuta a cikin 1704-1705, ya bayyana dalilin haramcin: "Domin yana da matuƙar muhimmanci ga dukkan gwamnatoci cewa mutane su sami ra'ayi mai kyau game da shi." Haƙiƙanin gaskiyar magana da ta saba wa dokar batanci ba tsaro ba ce.

Mallaka[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Tun da farko dai yankunan suna da ra'ayoyi daban-daban game da kare 'yancin fadin albarkacin baki. A lokacin mulkin mallaka na Ingila a Amurka, an sami ƙaramar ƙarar ƙararraki na cin zarafi fiye da Ingila, amma akwai wasu iko akan maganganun ƙin yarda.

Mafi tsauraran matakan sarrafa magana a lokacin mulkin mallaka sun kasance iko da suka haramta ko akasin haka da aka yi la'akari da saɓo ta hanyar addini. Dokar Massachusetts ta 1646, alal misali, ta azabtar da mutanen da suka musanta rai dawwama. A shekara ta 1612, wani gwamnan Virginia ya bayyana hukuncin kisa ga mutumin da ya ƙaryata Triniti a ƙarƙashin Dokokin Virginia na Divine, Moral and Martial, wanda kuma ya haramta saɓo, yana yin mummunar magana game da ministoci da sarauta, da "kalmomi masu banƙyama".

Ƙwararrun ilimi na baya-bayan nan, mai da hankali kan maganganu masu tayar da hankali a cikin karni na 17 (lokacin da babu jarida), ya nuna cewa daga shekara ta 1607 zuwa 1700 'yancin fadin albarkacin baki 'yan mulkin mallaka ya fadada sosai, yana kafa harsashi ga rashin amincewar siyasa da ya kunno kai tsakanin 'yan juyin juya halin Musulunci. tsara. [17]

Shari'ar John Peter Zenger a shekara ta 1735 ta kasance ƙararraki mai tayar da hankali ga littafin Zenger na sukar Gwamnan New York, William Cosby . Andrew Hamilton ya wakilci Zenger kuma ya yi jayayya cewa gaskiya ya kamata ta zama kariya ga laifin cin zarafi, amma kotu ta yi watsi da wannan hujja. Hamilton ya rinjayi alkalan kotun, duk da haka, su yi watsi da doka kuma su wanke Zenger. Ana ɗaukar shari'ar a matsayin nasara ga 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki da kuma babban misali na soke juri . Lamarin ya nuna mafarin samun karbuwa da kuma juriya ga ‘yancin fadin albarkacin baki.

Amincewar Gyaran Farko[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

A cikin 1780s bayan yakin juyin juya halin Amurka, muhawara kan amincewa da sabon kundin tsarin mulki ya haifar da rarrabuwa tsakanin 'yan Tarayyar Tarayya, irin su Alexander Hamilton wanda ya yarda da gwamnatin tarayya mai karfi, da masu adawa da Tarayyar Tarayya, irin su Thomas Jefferson da Patrick Henry wanda ya yarda da gwamnatin tarayya mai rauni.

A lokacin tabbatar da Kundin Tsarin Mulki da kuma bayan aiwatar da kundin tsarin mulkin kasar, masu adawa da gwamnatin tarayya da ‘yan majalisar dokoki na jihohi sun nuna damuwarsu kan yadda sabon kundin tsarin mulkin ya mayar da hankali sosai kan ikon gwamnatin tarayya. Mai gabatar da lissafin lissafin Lissafin Lissafi, gami da gyara na farko, ya kasance, a cikin babban bangare, kamar yadda lamarin ya cancanci karfin gwamnatin tarayya.

Ayyukan Manzanni[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

A cikin 1798, Majalisa, wanda ya ƙunshi da yawa daga cikin masu amincewa da Gyaran Farko a lokacin, sun ɗauki Ayyukan Alien da Sedition . Dokokin sun haramta buga “rubutun karya, abin kunya, da qeta ga gwamnatin Amurka, ko dai majalisar dokokin Amurka, ko shugaban Amurka, da nufin bata suna… kawo su ... cikin raini ko rashin kunya, ko don tada musu hankali ... ƙiyayya da mutanen kirki na Amurka, ko tada fitina a cikin Amurka, ko tayar da duk wani haramtacciyar haɗuwa a cikinta, don adawa ko adawa. kowace doka ta Amurka, ko duk wani aiki na shugaban Amurka".

Doka ta ba da izinin gaskiya a matsayin kariya kuma tana buƙatar shaidar mugun nufi. Dokar ta 1798 duk da haka ta ba da tabbacin manufar masu tsarawa game da Gyaran Farko da ɗan wahala, kamar yadda wasu daga cikin membobin Majalisar da suka goyi bayan amincewa da Kwaskwarimar Farko suma suka zaɓi ɗaukar Dokar 1798. ’Yan Tarayyar Tarayya a ƙarƙashin Shugaba John Adams sun yi amfani da doka da ƙarfi a kan abokan hamayyarsu, Democratic-Republican . Ayyukan Alien da Sedition sune babban batun siyasa a zaben 1800, kuma bayan an zabe shi Shugaban kasa, Thomas Jefferson ya gafarta wa waɗanda aka yanke musu hukunci a karkashin Dokar. Dokar ta kare kuma Kotun Koli ba ta taba yanke hukunci a kan kundin tsarin mulkin ta ba.

A cikin New York Times v. Sullivan, Kotun ta ayyana "Ko da yake ba a taɓa gwada Dokar tada hankali a wannan Kotun ba, harin da aka kai a kan ingancinta ya ɗauki ranar a kotun tarihin." 376 US 254, 276 (1964).

Zamanin tantancewa[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Daga ƙarshen 1800s zuwa tsakiyar 1900, dokoki daban-daban sun taƙaita magana ta hanyoyin da ba a yarda da su a yau ba, musamman saboda ƙa'idodin al'umma. Mai yiyuwa ne ta hanyar munanan kalamai da kuma hotunan batsa da ya ci karo da su a lokacin yakin basasa na Amurka, Anthony Comstock ya ba da shawarar hana gwamnati magana da ya ɓata ɗabi'ar Victoria . Ya shawo kan gwamnatin Jihar New York don ƙirƙirar Ƙungiyar New York don Kashe Mataimakin, a cikin 1873, kuma ya yi wahayi zuwa ga ƙirƙirar Watch and Ward Society a Boston a 1878. Hukumomin birni da na jihohi sun sanya ido a jaridu, littattafai, wasan kwaikwayo, ayyukan ban dariya, da fina-finai don abubuwan da ba su dace ba, kuma suna tilasta doka tare da kamawa, kama kayan aiki, da tara. Dokokin Comstock da Majalisa ta zartar (da kuma dokokin jihohi) sun hana aikawa da kayan ta hanyar wasikun Amurka da suka hada da hotunan batsa; bayanai game da rigakafin hana haihuwa, zubar da ciki, da kayan wasan jima'i; da haruffa na sirri da ke ambaton ayyukan jima'i. Ƙa'idar fim ɗin Amurka ta jihohi da ƙananan hukumomi an ƙara su ta hanyar Code Production Hoto daga 1930 zuwa 1968, a ƙoƙarin masana'antu don ƙaddamar da tsarin tarayya. Irin wannan Hukumar Comics Code ta masana'antu ta kasance daga 1954 zuwa 2011.

Wasu dokokin ba su kasance da ɗabi'a ba, amma damuwa game da tsaron ƙasa. Ofishin Tace Bayanin ya hana sadarwar bayanan mahimmancin soja a lokacin yakin duniya na biyu, gami da 'yan jarida da duk wasikun da ke shiga ko wajen Amurka. McCarthyism daga 1940s zuwa 1950s ya haifar da danne shawarar kwaminisanci, da baƙar fata na Hollywood . Wannan ya haɗa da wasu kararraki a ƙarƙashin Dokar Smith na 1940.

Ra'ayi na zamani[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Sakamakon hukumcin kotun Warren a tsakiyar ƙarni zuwa ƙarshen ƙarni na 20, Kotun ta koma kan tsarin da aka saba da shi wanda a ƙarƙashinsa ake zaton ‘yancin fadin albarkacin baki zai kare, sai dai in wani kebantaccen kebe. Don haka, baya ga wasu ƴan ƴan ƴancin keɓanta, gwamnati ba za ta iya daidaita abubuwan da ke cikin magana ba. A cikin shekara ta 1971, a cikin Cohen v. California, Justice John Marshall Harlan II, yana ambaton Whitney v. California, ya jaddada cewa Kwaskwarimar Farko tana aiki ne don kare rashin daidaituwar " kasuwa ta ra'ayoyin ", yayin da Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall ya yi bayani dalla-dalla a cikin 1972 cewa:

Nau'in magana[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Babban magana siyasa[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Wannan shi ne mafi girman tsare-tsaren magana saboda yanayin bayyanarsa da mahimmancinsa ga jamhuriya mai aiki. Ƙuntatawa da aka sanya akan ainihin maganganun siyasa dole ne a yi nazarin binciken sosai ko za a soke su. Babban abin da ke gaban wannan zai kasance a cikin yanayin tsarin zaɓe, wanda Kotun Koli ta yanke hukuncin cewa zaɓe ko tsayawa takara a matsayin ɗan takara ba magana ce ta siyasa ba don haka za a iya aiwatar da ƙa'idodi masu mahimmanci; Irin waɗannan hane-hane an kiyaye su a cikin Buckley v. Valeo .

Maganar kasuwanci[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Ba gaba ɗaya a waje da kariyar Ƙimar Farko ba magana ce ta kasuwanci, wacce ita ce magana da “ba da shawarar yin ciniki”, kamar yadda Ohralik v. Jihar Ohio Bar Assn. shekara ta 1978. Irin wannan magana har yanzu tana da fa'ida ko da yake ana yin ta a kasuwa wadda gwamnati ke tsarawa. A cikin shekara ta 1980, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Hukumar Sabis ta Jama'a ta yi imanin cewa hane-hane na maganganun kasuwanci yana ƙarƙashin binciken tsaka-tsakin abubuwa huɗu . Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. girma (2011) ya sanya shakku kan ko har yanzu maganar kasuwanci ta wanzu a matsayin nau'in magana. [18]

Hali na bayyanawa[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Halin bayyanawa, wanda kuma ake kira " magana ta alama " ko " ayyukan magana ," hali ne na rashin magana wanda ke nufin sadar da sako. Misalai sun haɗa da ƙirƙira ko lalata abu lokacin da aka yi shi azaman sanarwa (kamar tuta da ke ƙonewa a cikin zanga-zangar siyasa), zanga-zangar shiru da faretin da aka yi niyya don isar da sako, suturar da ke ɗauke da alamomi masu ma'ana (kamar rigar yaƙi), harshen jiki, saƙonni rubuta cikin lamba, ra'ayoyi da tsarin da ke kunshe a matsayin lambar kwamfuta (" software "), dabarun lissafi da kimiyya, da ayyukan yaudara waɗanda ke isar da ta hanyar nuna hali, buƙata, ko ra'ayi.

Hukunce-hukuncen kotunan tarayya sun amince da ɗabi'a mai faɗi kamar yadda ake kiyaye su a ƙarƙashin Kwaskwarimar Farko a matsayin nau'in magana, kodayake ba a rubuta wannan sarai a cikin takaddar ba.

Misali, da aka gani ta fuskar gyaran Farko, lambar kwamfuta wata hanya ce ta yin magana game da yadda ake warware matsala, ta yin amfani da madaidaicin kalmomin da za a iya ba da kwamfuta a matsayin kwatance, kuma kona tuta hanya ce ta magana ko bayyana da ƙarfi ga mutum. ra'ayi adawa da ayyuka ko matsayin siyasa na kasar da abin ya shafa. Mahimmanci, yuwuwar ta kasance don kiyaye aikin magana ɗaya ko a'a ya danganta da mahallin da niyya . Misali, ana iya samun bambanci na Gyaran Farko tsakanin kona tuta don nuna rashin amincewa da irin wannan aikin da aka yi a matsayin ɓarna na banza kawai. [19]

Bata da ma'ana[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Wasu maganganu suna da ma'ana marar fahimta, mai wuyar fa'ida, mara niyya, ko ma'anar da ba za a iya gane su ba. Waɗannan sun haɗa da kiɗan kayan aiki, zane-zane na zane-zane, da kuma maganar banza . Ana haɗa waɗannan gabaɗaya cikin “magana” masu kariya, amma wasu dalilan yin hakan ba sa aiki. A cikin shekara ta 1995 yanke shawara Hurley v. Gay Ba'amurke ɗan Irish, Madigo, da Ƙungiyar Bisexual na Boston, Kotun Koli ta Amurka ta tabbatar da cewa fasahar Jackson Pollock, kiɗan furci na Arnold Schoenberg, da waƙar jabberwocky ana kiyaye su. Wannan ya bambanta da, alal misali, Nazi Jamus, wanda ya haramta abin da ya kira " fasahar fasaha " da " lalacewar kiɗa ".

A cikin yanke shawara na shekara ta 2010 Kleinman v. Birnin San Marcos, [20] Da'irar ta biyar ta Amurka ta lura da wasu lokuta da yawa inda aka haɗu da abubuwan fasaha na fasaha tare da abubuwan da ba na magana ba (kamar motar da aka zana ta fasaha ko tufafin da aka yi wa ado da zane-zane). A kowane hali, kotuna sun zaɓi yin amfani da cikakkiyar kariya ta Gyaran Farko, amma sun yi amfani da bincike na tsaka-tsaki tare da tabbatar da ƙa'idodin gwamnati na tsaka-tsakin abun ciki (misali babu motocin da ba su da kyau da aka nuna akan titunan jama'a, ƙuntatawa lokaci da wuri akan masu siyar da titi).

A cikin yanayin Morse v. Frederick, wanda ake tuhuma ya yi ikirarin taken "BONG HiTS 4 YESU" yana nufin ya haifar da sha'awa ko kyama amma ba a ba da shawarar wani abu ba, amma Kotun Koli ta yanke hukuncin cewa za a iya hukunta shi a karkashin koyarwar magana ta makaranta saboda mutum mai hankali zai iya fassara shi a matsayin bayar da shawarar yin amfani da miyagun ƙwayoyi ba bisa ka'ida ba. (wanda ya sabawa manufofin makaranta).

Nau'in hana magana[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Kotun koli ta amince da nau'o'in dokoki daban-daban waɗanda ke hana magana, kuma suna ba da kowane nau'in doka zuwa matakin bincike daban-daban.

Ƙuntataccen tushen abun ciki[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Hane-hane da ke tushen abun ciki "sun sabawa kundin tsarin mulki ba tare da la'akari da kyakkyawar muradi na gwamnati, ba tare da tsangwama ba, ko rashin ra'ayin da ke ƙunshe a cikin jawabin da aka tsara." Ƙuntatawa waɗanda ke buƙatar bincika abubuwan da ke cikin magana da za a yi amfani da su dole ne su wuce cikakken bincike. [21]

Ƙuntataccen tushen abun ciki na iya ko dai nuna bambanci bisa ra'ayi ko batun batun. Misalin dokar da ta tsara abin da ya shafi magana shi ne dokar birnin da ta hana duk wani zagon kasa a gaban makaranta in ban da zabar aiki. Wannan doka za ta zama tamkar nuna wariya ga batun domin ta fifita wani batu fiye da wani wajen yanke shawarar wanda za ta ba da damar yin magana. Misalin dokar da ke daidaita ra'ayin mai magana zai kasance manufar wani jami'in gwamnati wanda ya ba da izinin masu goyon bayan '' masu ra'ayin rai '' su yi magana a kan kadarorin gwamnati amma an haramta masu ''pro-choice'' saboda ra'ayoyinsu za a shiga. a cikin '' ra'ayi bambance-bambance . Ƙuntatawa waɗanda suka shafi wasu ra'ayoyi amma ba wasu suna fuskantar mafi girman matakin bincike ba, kuma yawanci ana soke su, sai dai idan sun fada cikin ɗayan keɓancewar kotu. Ana samun misalin wannan a cikin hukuncin Kotun Koli ta Amurka a cikin Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez a cikin 2001. A wannan yanayin, Kotun ta ce ba za a iya amfani da tallafin gwamnati ba don nuna bambanci ga wani takamaiman misali na bayar da ra'ayi.

Kotun ta nuna a cikin Snyder v. Phelps (2011) cewa hanya ɗaya don tabbatar da ko ƙuntatawa ta dogara ne akan abun ciki tare da tsaka-tsakin abun ciki shine a yi la'akari da idan mai magana ya isar da saƙo na dabam a daidai wannan yanayi: "Ƙungiyar Ikklesiya da ke tsaye a daidai wurin da Westboro ta tsaya., riƙe alamun da ke cewa 'Allah Ya Albarkaci Amurka' da 'Allah Yana Ƙaunar ku,' da ba za a yi musu hukunci ba. Abin da Westboro ya ce shi ne ya fallasa shi ga gallazawa . "

Ƙayyadaddun lokaci, wuri, da hanyoyi[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Yankin 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a Babban Taron Dimokuradiyya na 2004

Grayned v. Birnin Rockford (1972) ya taƙaita lokaci, wuri, ra'ayi: "Tambaya mai mahimmanci ita ce ko hanyar magana ba ta dace da aikin al'ada na wani wuri a wani lokaci ba." Dole ne ƙayyadaddun lokaci, wuri, da hanyoyi su yi tsayayya da tsaka-tsakin bincike . Lura cewa duk ka'idojin da za su tilasta masu magana su canza yadda ko abin da suke fada ba su shiga cikin wannan nau'in ba (don haka gwamnati ba za ta iya takurawa wata hanya ba ko da ta bar wani). Ward v. Rock Against wariyar launin fata (1989) yana riƙe cewa ƙuntatawa lokaci, wuri, ko hanya dole ne:

Maganar Intanet, dandalin kan layi[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Samun Intanet ya canza yadda mutane ke sadarwa a duk faɗin duniya kuma ya buɗe sabbin dama ga Amurkawa don bayyana haƙƙoƙin Gyaran Farko . Maganar Intanet tana faruwa ne a cikin yanayin dijital inda duka masu magana da masu sauraro za su iya shiga ta hanyar kwamfuta, wayoyi masu wayo, da sauran na'urorin lantarki kuma suna iya sadarwa da sadarwa tare da kowa a kowane lokaci.

"Kayi Tunani Kafin Ka Buga"

Gwamnatoci sun ba da shawarwari da yawa ga dandamali na kan layi masu zaman kansu don ƙa'idodin tsari waɗanda za a iya aiwatar da su don tabbatar da kiyaye haƙƙin Gyaran Farko na masu amfani akan Intanet. Idan waɗannan ƙa'idodin sun keta doka, dandamali yana da haƙƙin cire abun ciki wanda ke haƙƙin mallaka ko abin banƙyama. [22] Dokokin da ke daidaita cin zarafi akan layi, bata suna, da dai sauransu suna fuskantar ƙaƙƙarfan aikin daidaitawa. Yawancin abun ciki na kan layi, kamar haka, yana iyakance haɗari ta hanyar murkushe maganganun manya kuma. Dole ne a rubuta su ƙunƙunƙun don guje wa shiga cikin magana da Ƙaddamarwa ta Farko ta karewa yayin da har yanzu ke taƙaita halayen da ba a so a aikace.

Yarjejeniyar ƙasa da ƙasa kan 'yancin jama'a da siyasa (ICCPR) ta ba da kariya ta duniya don 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki da sauran haƙƙoƙin ɗan adam, amma ya haɗa da tsattsauran magana cewa '[a] duk wata ƙiyayya ta ƙasa, kabilanci ko ta addini wacce ta ƙunshi tunzura ga wariya, ƙiyayya ko tashin hankali. doka ta haramta”. Ba a yarda da wariya da kalaman ƙiyayya ta kowace iri bisa ga wannan juzu'i kuma sun shafi dandalin kan layi. Dokokin da suka yi amfani da wannan sashe don sa ido kan cin zarafi na kan layi, bata suna, da sauransu suna buƙatar ƙayyadadden aikin daidaitawa. Dole ne a rubuta su da ɗan ƙanƙantar da hankali don guje wa cin zarafi da ƙaƙƙarfan gyare-gyaren Farko ya karewa yayin da har yanzu ke taƙaita ayyukan da ba a so a aikace. [23]

A cikin yanke shawara na 9-0, Kotun Koli ta ba da cikakkiyar kariya ga Gyaran Farko ga Intanet a cikin Reno v. ACLU, yanke shawara wanda ya rushe sassan 1996 Communications Decency Act, dokar da ta haramta "lalata" sadarwar kan layi. Hukuncin kotun ya tsawaita kariyar da kundin tsarin mulki ya ba wa littattafai, mujallu, fina-finai, da maganganun magana ga abubuwan da aka buga a Intanet. Majalisa ta yi ƙoƙari a karo na biyu don daidaita abubuwan da ke cikin Intanet tare da Dokar Kare Kan Kan Yara (COPA). A cikin 2002, Kotun Koli ta sake yin hukunci a Ƙungiyar 'Yancin Jama'a ta Amurka v. Ashcroft cewa duk wani iyakancewa akan Intanet ya sabawa tsarin mulki.

A Amurka v. Ƙungiyar Laburare ta Amirka (2003), Kotun Koli ta yanke hukuncin cewa Majalisa na da ikon buƙatar makarantun jama'a da ɗakunan karatu da ke karɓar rangwamen kuɗi don shigar da software na sarrafa abun ciki a matsayin sharadi na karɓar kudade na tarayya. Alkalan sun ce duk wata damuwa ta Farko an magance ta ta tanadin da ke cikin Dokar Kariyar Intanet ta Yara wanda ke ba manya damar tambayar ma'aikatan ɗakin karatu da su kashe matattara ko buɗe rukunin yanar gizo.

A cikin Facebook v. Sullivan, mai goyon bayan wani gangami na Neo-Nazi a Charlottesville, VA, ya gudu ya kashe wani mai zanga-zangar lumana a kan zanga-zangar kuma daga bisani ya rubuta a kan Facebook game da harin da ya kai da girman kai. Dandalin sada zumunta ya sauke bayanansa da duk wani rubutu da ke da alaka da wannan harin da ke nuna shi ta kowace hanya banda ban tausayi. Ko da yake Facebook ba a ɗaure shi da Kwaskwarimar Farko, dandamali yana da ka'idoji na kansa dangane da kiyaye 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki amma kuma yana barin maganganun cutarwa.


Duba kuma[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Manazarta[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

  1. ↑ "freedom of speech In: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition, 2020". Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Archived from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved July 28, 2020.
  2. ↑ "freedom of speech". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on February 29, 2020. Retrieved July 28, 2020.
  3. ↑ "free speech". Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Archived from the original on September 16, 2019. Retrieved July 28, 2020.
  4. ↑ "freedom of speech". Dictionary.com. Archived from the original on September 10, 2019. Retrieved July 28, 2020.
  5. ↑ "Riley v. National Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1988), at 796 - 797". Justia US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved July 28, 2020.
  6. ↑ Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2661 (Supreme Court of the United States 2011).
  7. ↑ Dunn, Christopher (April 28, 2009). "Column: Applying the Constitution to Private Actors (New York Law Journal)". New York Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 27 January 2017.
  8. ↑ Berman-Gorvine, Martin (19 May 2014). "Employer Ability to Silence Employee Speech Narrowing in Private Sector, Attorneys Say". Bloomberg BNA. Retrieved 1 March 2019.
  9. ↑ .Text
  10. ↑ (2010).Text
  11. ↑ (2011).Text
  12. ↑ (1977).Text
  13. ↑ (1988).Text
  14. ↑ (2012).Text
  15. ↑ (2011).Text
  16. ↑ (2004).Text
  17. ↑ Larry D. Eldridge, A Distant Heritage: The Growth of Free Speech in Early America, New York: NYU Press, 1994.
  18. ↑ ''Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 180 L. Ed. 2d 544, 2011 ILRC 2067, 32 ILRD 281 (2011), Court Opinion.Text
  19. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named tien1
  20. ↑ KLEINMAN v. CITY OF SAN MARCOS
  21. ↑ Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989) Sable Communications of California v. Federal Communications Commission. No. 88-515. Argued April 19, 1989. Decided June 23, 1989
  22. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Mostert 607–612
  23. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Marwick

Ci gaba da karatu[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

  • 1-58477-085-6
  • Cronin, Mary M. (ed. 'Yanci Ba makawa: Yaki don Magana Kyauta a Amurka na Karni na Sha Tara. Carbondale, IL: Jami'ar Kudancin Illinois Press, 2016.
  • Eldridge, Larry. Gadon Nisa: Girman Maganar Magana a Farkon Amurka. New York: Jami'ar New York Press, 1995.
  • 0-8129-2834-2
  • 0-521-65537-4
  • 0-394-33256-3

Hanyoyin haɗi na waje[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Daga "https://ha.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ƴancin_Faɗar_Albarkacin_Baki_a_Amurka&oldid=387848"