proscribable

In context, the Court was attempting to distinguish between instances where content-based regulation of a subcategory of otherwise proscribable speech is unconstitutional as in the St. Paul ordinance at issue from those where “a particular content-based subcategory of a proscribable class of speech can be swept up incidentally within the reach of a statute directed at conduct rather than speech.”

The Volokh Conspiracy » Further Defense of College Students’ First Amendment Rights 2009

If, on the other hand, Defendants mean that all speech that offends this definition is necessarily proscribable as sexually derogatory fighting words, then we reject this argument as an unwarranted and unconstitutional enlargement of what constitutes fighting words.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Further Defense of College Students’ First Amendment Rights 2009

Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm ordeath.

The Volokh Conspiracy » First Amendment Protects Disclosure of Name and Address of Juror, Together With Condemnation of Juror, on Racist Web Site: 2009

The specific speech for which plaintiff was prosecuted contains no constitutionally proscribable speech.

Recently Uploaded Slideshows FIRSTAMENDMENT 2010

Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that truthful lawfully-obtained, publicly - available personal identifying information constitutes a mode of constitutionally proscribable speech.

Recently Uploaded Slideshows FIRSTAMENDMENT 2010

Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.

Recently Uploaded Slideshows FIRSTAMENDMENT 2010

This suggests that in the Washington statute, the “basis for the content discrimination [within the unprotected category] consists entirely of the very reason [or, here, reasons] the entire class of speech at issue is proscribable”: The law is punishing statements that are especially dangerous to public discussion (since they are about elections, where sound decisionmaking is especially important, and a decision must be made by the election day, so falsehoods may therefore be especially damaging), and that are especially likely to hurt a particular person (which explains the exception for false statements about yourself).

The Volokh Conspiracy » Restricting Recklessly/Knowingly False Statements About Political Candidates: 2007

City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), that “since words can in some circumstances violate laws directed not against speech but against conduct (a law against treason, for example, is violated by telling the enemy the Nation’s defense secrets), a particular content-based subcategory of a proscribable class of speech can be swept up incidently within the reach of a statute directed at conduct rather than speech.”

The Volokh Conspiracy » Further Defense of College Students’ First Amendment Rights 2009

It’s not the case that “the basis for the content discrimination [deceased soldiers’ names vs. others’ names] consists entirely of the very reason the entire class of speech at issue [speech that uses others’ names without permission] is proscribable.”

The Volokh Conspiracy » Unconstitutional Restriction on Use of Fallen Soldiers’ Names? 2007

"But in the recent 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that student speech is 'proscribable because it is plainly' offensive. '

Raw Story 2010