Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 9 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps Anchor | green | “in the context of governmental restriction of speech, it has long been established that the government cannot limit speech protected by the first amendment without bearing the burden of showing that its restriction is justified.” | 5 |
| 2 | Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton | green | “the fact that a congressional directive reflects unprovable assumptions about what is good for the people, including imponderable aesthetic assumptions, is not a sufficient reason to find that statute unconstitutional.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.