Compelled speech

   compelled speech

ID Semântico:	marcilio:compelled-speech
Classe:	Direito Comparado
Nível Técnico:	Profissional
Origem do Termo:	Inglês
Áreas de Foco:	Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
Jurisdição:	EUA/Brasil

Progresso do texto
		Início
		Básico
		Criação
		Desenvolvimento
		Maturação
		Revisão
		Desenvolvido
		Finalização
		Abrangente

Significado Prático

1. compelled speech = discurso/expressão forçada.\nEm https://mtsu.edu/first-\namendment/article/933/compelled-speech:\n• The compelled speech doctrine sets out the\nprinciple that the government cannot force\nan individual or group to support certain\nexpression.\n• Thus, the First Amendment not only limits\nthe government from punishing a person for\nhis speech, it also prevents the government\nfrom punishing a person for refusing to\narticulate, advocate, or adhere to the\ngovernment’s approved messages.\n\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_\nBoard_of_Education_v._Barnette:\nWest Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,\n319 U.S. 624 (1943),\n• is a landmark decision by the United States\nSupreme Court holding that the Free Speech\nClause of the First Amendment\n• protects students from being forced to\nsalute the American flag or say the Pledge of\nAllegiance in public school.\n• The Court's 6–3 decision, delivered by\nJustice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for\nits forceful defense of free speech and\nconstitutional rights generally as being\nplaced "beyond the reach of majorities and\nofficials".\nHolding:\n• The Free Speech clause of the First\nAmendment\n• prohibits public schools from forcing\nstudents to salute the American flag and say\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\n____________\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/us/suprem\ne-court-crack-sentences.html\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._United_Stat\nes\nTerry v. United States (2021):\nHolding\n• A crack offender is eligible for a sentence\nreduction\n\n• under the First Step Act\n• only if convicted of a crack offense that\n• triggered a mandatory minimum sentence.\n____________________\n\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/us/suprem\ne-court-gay-rights-foster-care.html\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_v._City_of_Ph\niladelphia\n#Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021)\n• was a United States Supreme Court case\n• dealing with litigation over discrimination of\nlocal regulations based on the\n• Free Exercise Clause and\n• Establishment Clause of\n• First Amendment to the United States\nConstitution.\n• The specific case deals with a religious-\nbacked foster care agency that was denied a\nnew contract by the City of Philadelphia,\nPennsylvania\n• due to the agency's refusal to provide\nservice to married same-sex couples on\nreligious grounds.\nHolding:\nThe refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for\nthe provision of foster care services\nunless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as\nfoster parents\nviolates the Free Exercise Clause of the First\nAmendment.\n______________\n\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/us/suprem\ne-court-human-rights-nestle.html\nSupreme Court Limits Human Rights Suits Against\nCorporations\nSix citizens of Mali had sued Nestlé USA and Cargill,\naccusing the companies of profiting from child\nslavery on Ivory Coast cocoa farms.\nJune 17, 2021\nWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on\nThursday in favor of two American corporations\naccused of complicity in child slavery on Ivory Coast\ncocoa farms. The decision was the latest in a series\nof rulings imposing strict limits on lawsuits brought\nin federal court based on human rights abuses\nabroad.\nThe case was brought by six citizens of Mali who\nsaid they were trafficked into slavery as children.\nThey sued Nestlé USA and Cargill, saying the firms\nhad aided and profited from the practice of forced\nchild labor.\nJustice Clarence Thomas, writing for an eight-\nmember majority, said the companies’ activities in\nthe United States were not sufficiently tied to the\nasserted abuses.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_USA,_I\nnc._v._Doe:\nNestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. ____ (2021)\n• is a United States Supreme Court decision\nregarding the Alien Tort Statute (ATS),\n• which provides federal courts jurisdiction\nover claims brought by #foreign nationals\n\n(#estrangeiro) for violations of international\nlaw.\n• Consolidated with Cargill, Inc. v. Doe,[1] the\ncase concerned a class-action lawsuit against\nNestlé USA and Cargill for aiding and\nabetting child slavery in Côte d’Ivoire by\npurchasing from cocoa producers that utilize\nchild slave labor from Mali.\n• The plaintiffs, who were former slave\nlaborers in the cocoa farms, brought their\nclaim in U.S. district court under the ATS.\nHolding:\n• To plead facts sufficient to support a\ndomestic application of the Alien Tort\nStatute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350,\n• plaintiffs must allege more domestic\nconduct than general #corporate activity\n(atividade #empresarial).\n_________\n______________\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/suprem\ne-court-ncaa-student-athletes.html\nSupreme Court Backs Payments to Student-\nAthletes in N.C.A.A. Case\nThe association argued that the payments were a\nthreat to amateurism and that barring them did not\nviolate the antitrust laws.\nThe Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday\nthat the N.C.A.A. could not bar relatively modest\npayments to student-athletes, a decision that\nunderscored the growing challenges to a college\nsports system that generates huge sums for schools\n\nbut provides little or no compensation to the\nplayers.\n\nThe decision concerned only payments and other\nbenefits related to education. But its logic\nsuggested that the court may be open to a head-on\nchallenge to the ban by the National Collegiate\nAthletic Association on paying athletes for their\nparticipation in sports that bring billions of dollars in\nrevenue to American colleges and universities.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_\nAthletic_Association_v._Alston:\nNational Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston,\n594 U.S. ___ (2021),\n• was a United States Supreme Court case\nconcerning the compensation of collegiate\nathletes within the National Collegiate\nAthletic Association (NCAA).\n• It followed from a previous case, O'Bannon\nv. NCAA, in which it was found that the\nNCAA was profiting from the namesake and\nlikenesses of college athletes.\n• The case dealt with the NCAA's restrictions\non providing college athletes with non-cash\ncompensation for academic-related\npurposes, such as computers and\ninternships, which the NCAA maintained was\nto prevent the appearance that the student\nathletes were being paid to play or treated\nas professional athletes.\n• Lower courts had ruled that these\nrestrictions were in violation of antitrust\n\nlaw, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a\nunanimous ruling in June 2021.\n_________________________\n______________________\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/suprem\ne-court-free-speech-cheerleader.html\n\nSupreme Court Rules for Cheerleader Punished for\nVulgar Snapchat Message\nThe decision set new limits on disciplining students\nfor off-campus speech but did not totally bar\nadministrators from doing so.\nThe Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a\nPennsylvania school district had violated the First\nAmendment by punishing a student for a vulgar\nsocial media message sent while she was not on\nschool grounds.\nThe decision, on a vote of 8 to 1, did not establish a\ncategorical ban on regulating student speech\noutside of school, citing the need of school systems\nto be able to deal with issues like bullying and\nthreats.\nInstead, it set out factors that courts should assess\nin weighing the right of administrators to punish\nspeech in nonschool settings, with one important\ncomponent being whether parents are better suited\nto handle the situation.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_Scho\nol_District_v._B.L.\n\nMahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. ___\n(2021),\n• was a United States Supreme Court case\ninvolving the ability of schools to regulate\nstudent speech made off-campus, such as\nspeech made on social media.\n• The case challenged past interpretation of\nTinker v. Des Moines Independent\nCommunity School District and Bethel\nSchool District v. Fraser, previous Supreme\nCourt decisions related to student speech\nwhich may be disruptive to the educational\nenvironment, in light of online\ncommunications.\nHolding\n• While public schools may have a special\ninterest in regulating some off-campus\nstudent speech, the special interests offered\nby the school are not sufficient to overcome\nB. L.’s interest in free expression in this case.\n______________\n____________\n\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/suprem\ne-court-unions-farms-california.html:\nSupreme Court Rules Against Union Recruiting on\nCalifornia Farms\nThe case concerned a unique state regulation\nallowing labor representatives to meet with farm\nworkers at their workplaces for up to three hours a\nday for as many as 120 days a year.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a\nCalifornia regulation allowing union organizers to\nrecruit agricultural workers at their workplaces\nviolated the constitutional rights of their employers.\nThe vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal\nmembers in dissent.\nChief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the\nmajority, said that “the access regulation grants\nlabor organizations a right to invade the growers’\nproperty.” That meant, he wrote, that it was a\ntaking of private property without just\ncompensation.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Point_Nursery\n_v._Hassid\n#Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021),\nwas a United States Supreme Court case involving\neminent domain and labor relations. In its decision,\nthe Court held that a regulation made pursuant to\nthe California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that\nrequired agricultural employers to allow labor\norganizers to regularly access their property for the\npurposes of union recruitment constituted a per se\ntaking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently,\nthe regulation may not be enforced unless “just\ncompensation” is provided to the employers.\nHolding\n• The California Agricultural Labor Relations\nAct of 1975,\n• which grants labor organizations an\nuncompensated "right to take access" to an\nagricultural employer’s property in order to\nsolicit support for unionization,\n\n• effects a per se physical taking under the\nFifth Amendment.\n___________\n______________\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/suprem\ne-court-hot-pursuit-entry.html\nHot Pursuit’ Doesn’t Always Justify Entry, Supreme\nCourt Rules\nThe mere flight of a person suspected of a minor\ncrime, without more, does not allow police officers\nto enter homes without warrants, the court said.\nThe Supreme Court, which has said that police\nofficers do not need a warrant to enter a home\nwhen they are in “hot pursuit of a fleeing felon,”\nruled on Wednesday that the same thing is not\nalways true when the crime in question was as\nminor as playing a car stereo too loudly.\n\nJustice Elena Kagan, writing for a seven-justice\nmajority, said the mere fact that someone\nsuspected of a minor crime fled from the police did\nnot justify entering a home. She added that other\nfactors could change the calculus.\n\n“We have no doubt that in a great many cases flight\ncreates a need for police to act swiftly,” she wrote.\n“A suspect may flee, for example, because he is\nintent on discarding evidence. Or his flight may\nshow a willingness to flee yet again, while the police\nawait a warrant. But no evidence suggests that\nevery case of misdemeanor flight poses such\ndangers.”\n\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_v._California:\nLange v. California, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a\nUnited States Supreme Court case involving the\nexigent circumstances requirement related to the\nFourth Amendment to the United States\nConstitution. The Court ruled unanimously that the\nwarrantless entry into a home by police in pursuit of\na misdemeanant is not unequivocally justified.\nHolding\nUnder the Fourth Amendment, pursuit of a fleeing\nmisdemeanor suspect does not always or\ncategorically qualify as an exigent circumstance\njustifying a warrantless entry into a home.\n_______________\n_______________\n

Simplificação de Linguagem (Lei 15.263/2025)

Abaixo, a comparação prática de aplicação do termo sob a ótica do acesso à justiça:

Redação Formal (Juridiquês)	Redação Cidadã (Linguagem Simples)
"O correspondente para o termo 'compelled speech' em processos transnacionais..."	"#compelled speech = discurso/expressão forçada...."

Detalhes Classificatórios

• Áreas do Direito associadas: Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
• Classe Terminológica: Direito Comparado
• Natureza Jurídica: Termo e Conceito Estrangeiro
• Nível Técnico sugerido: Profissional

Aspectos Linguísticos

• Idioma originário: Inglês
• Etimologia: Origem da linguagem jurídica norte-americana / direito comparado.
• Pronúncia ou leitura recomendada: compelled speech

Referência Bibliográfica

• Dicionário Marcílio Atualizado Constantemente (2024)