Is prescribed a verb?

verb (used with object), pre·scribed, pre·scrib·ing. to lay down, in writing or otherwise, as a rule or a course of action to be followed; appoint, ordain, or enjoin. Medicine/Medical. to designate or order the use of (a medicine, remedy, treatment, etc.).

Is prescribed and adjective?

prescribed adjective (RULE) set by a rule or order: The product will have to meet internationally prescribed (= demanded) standards.

Is prescribe a noun?

The act of prescribing a rule, law, etc.. Also called acquisitive prescription and positive prescription. …

What is the verb for prescription?

Medical Definition of prescribe intransitive verb. : to write or give medical prescriptions.

What is the verb of diagnosis?

transitive verb. 1 : to recognize (as a disease) by signs and symptoms. 2 : to diagnose a disease or condition in diagnosed the patient. intransitive verb. : to make a diagnosis.

What is the verb for criticism?

critique Add to list Share. As a verb, critique means to review or examine something critically. The French version of this word is spelled the same (meaning “the art of criticism”) and came from the Greek kritike tekhne (“the critical art”).

What is the synonym of disparage?

Some common synonyms of disparage are belittle, decry, and depreciate. While all these words mean “to express a low opinion of,” disparage implies depreciation by indirect means such as slighting or invidious comparison.

What is self disparagement?

: tending or serving to disparage or undervalue oneself self-deprecating humor He is far too self-deprecating … to assume the persona of a celebrity.—

Is disparaging speech protected?

Supreme Court: Disparaging Speech Protected By First Amendment; Lanham Act Section 2(a) Unconstitutional: A Win for the Slants and the Skins. 15-1293 (June 19, 2017), the Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering federal trademarks that “disparage” any person violates the First Amendment.

Do you think college speech codes violate the First Amendment?

Speech codes at public U.S. colleges and universities remain common features on campus despite federal courts having consistently ruled that they violate students’ First Amendment speech rights.

Is hate speech protected by the First Amendment?

While “hate speech” is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment.

Are slants trademarked?

The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band’s Name In Trademark Dispute. The Slants’ frontman, Simon Tam, filed the original lawsuit after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office kept the band from registering its name. Contrary to the Government’s contention, trademarks are private, not government speech.”

What did Simon Tam’s lawyer want him to register for?

In late 2009, Tam’s attorney recommended that he file an application to register the band’s trademark. This eventually became an extensive legal battle when the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that the band’s name was disparaging to persons of Asian descent.

Why did Simon Tam start the slants?

21, 2015. When Simon Tam decided to name his dance-rock band “The Slants,” he did not know that this decision would land him in a legal battle, and eventually in the US Supreme Court. The band has said it wanted to reclaim what is often seen as a slur against Asian Americans.

What did the Supreme Court rule in Matal v Tam?

In Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. __ (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled 8-0 that a federal law prohibiting trademark names that disparage others was unconstitutional because “speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.”

What is viewpoint based discrimination?

When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints. For example, if an ordinance banned all speech on the Iraq War, it would be a content-based regulation.

Is a judicial review?

Judicial review, power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

Who was involved in the Matal v tam case?

§ 1052(a)) of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional and found that Simon Tam was entitled to trademark registration. Tam was represented by John C. Connell of Archer & Greiner and Ron Coleman and Joel MacMull, now of Mandelbaum Salsburg.

What is the Lanham Trademark Act?

§§ 1051 et seq., was enacted by Congress in 1946. The Act provides for a national system of trademark registration and protects the owner of a federally registered mark against the use of similar marks if such use is likely to result in consumer confusion, or if the dilution of a famous mark is likely to occur.

Who was the plaintiff in Matal v Tam?

Certiorari granted The U.S. Supreme Court granted Lee’s certiorari request on September 29, 2016. Argument in the case was held on January 18, 2017. Joseph Matal was the named petitioner in the case when the court delivered its opinion after Lee resigned as PTO director.

Who won packingham vs NC?

Facts of the case In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking “indecent liberties with a child”, a felony that required him to register as a sex offender. A North Carolina court sentenced him to the standard 10–12 months in prison with 24 months of supervised release.

Can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanism available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard?

These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Reno, 521 U. S., at 870.

What is the public forum doctrine?

The public forum doctrine is an analytical tool used in First Amendment jurisprudence to determine the constitutionality of speech restrictions implemented on government property. Courts employ this doctrine to decide whether groups should have access to engage in expressive activities on such property.