翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Valentine Simpson ・ Valentine Snow ・ Valentine Soap Workers Cottages ・ Valentine Step ・ Valentine Stock ・ Valentine Stockdale ・ Valentine Strasser ・ Valentine tank ・ Valentine Telegdi ・ Valentine Tessier ・ Valentine Theatre ・ Valentine Theodore Schaaf ・ Valentine Titchmarsh ・ Valentine Treadwell ・ Valentine Tsamma Seane ・ Valentine v. Chrestensen ・ Valentine v. United States ・ Valentine Vivian ・ Valentine Vox ・ Valentine W. Southall ・ Valentine Walter Bromley ・ Valentine Walton ・ Valentine Warner ・ Valentine Weaver House ・ Valentine Whitman House ・ Valentine Wightman House ・ Valentine Williams ・ Valentine Wilson House ・ Valentine Winkler ・ Valentine's Day Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Valentine v. Chrestensen ： ウィキペディア英語版 Valentine v. Chrestensen ''Valentine v. Chrestensen'', 316 U.S. 52 (1942), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that commercial speech in public thoroughfares is not constitutionally protected. == Background == The respondent, F.J. Chrestensen, was the owner of a World War I submarine which he had moored at a State pier on the East River in New York City. Chrestensen attempted to distribute handbills that advertised his exhibition and solicited visitors for an admission fee, a violation of a municipal ordinance (Section 318 of the Sanitary Code) prohibiting the distribution of printed handbills in the streets bearing "commercial advertising matter." The Police Commissioner of New York City, Lewis J. Valentine, warned Chrestensen of the violation and informed him that only the distribution of handbills solely devoted to "information or a public protest" was permitted.〔http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/advertising/overview.aspx〕Accordingly, Chrestensen remade his handbill by removing the admission fee from the front side and placing on the reverse a protest against the City Dock Department's refusal to grant his submarine dockage. The Police Department nevertheless prohibited distribution of the new handbill on grounds that the front side retained commercial advertising content, even without statement of an admission fee. Chrestensen, alleging loss in the excess of $4,000, sued under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, and Valentine petitioned to the Supreme Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Valentine v. Chrestensen」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.