| Military Dress and the First Amendment |
| |
| The application of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the armed services is not nearly as broad as it is in the civilian context. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the military can prohibit the wearing of yarmulkes by Jewish soldiers when in uniform. The armed forces no longer give religious waivers for uniform and grooming rules.
More... |
| |
| College "Speech Codes" and the First Amendment |
| |
| "Speech codes" on some college campuses have created debate about the freedom of speech. Opponents of speech codes contend that the policies actually violate students' right to free speech by limiting what students can say, and sometimes where they can say it. A federal court has determined that a university could not enforce those parts of a code of conduct that had the effect of limiting students' First Amendment rights. More... |
| |
| The Freedom of Religion in Prisons |
| |
| The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) says in part that no government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of anyone confined to a federally-funded government institution, including prisons and jails. RLUIPA requires prisons to accommodate the religions practiced by inmates. The law allows governmental authorities to interfere with religious practices only if they can show a "compelling governmental interest." Often, prison security and discipline have been found to be sufficient reasons to restrict inmates' religious practices.
More... |
| |
| The Freedom of Speech During Elections |
| |
| The freedom of speech is "essential to our democratic ideals." A city cannot ban political candidates from mentioning their opponents in a city voter pamphlet. The First Amendment permits candidates--even ones for judicial offices--to speak out on their party membership or affiliation, as well as on their views on political issues. A state appellate court has ruled that a shopping mall cannot ban a political candidate from soliciting petition signatures on mall property.
More... |
| |
| Internet surveillance provision of USA PATRIOT Act |
| |
| A federal court has ruled that the surveillance provision of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) was unconstitutionally broad. In striking down § 505, the federal judge said that while national security was of "paramount value," personal security was equal in importance. The judge held that § 505 was violative of the First Amendment because § 505's permanent ban on disclosure of the request was an impermissible "prior restraint" on free speech. Additionally, the surveillance provision violated the Constitution because it gave "unchecked powers" to obtain private information. Furthermore, it violated the Constitution's prohibitions against unreasonable searches.
More... |
| |
