For over 50 years, NCAC has stood as a watchdog against censorship.
Our legal advocacy work stands at the frontlines of the battle for freedom of speech. Whether it’s fighting book bans, challenging unconstitutional policies, or supporting artists, students, and educators whose voices are being silenced — we don’t just talk about rights. We fight for them.
Censorship doesn’t just affect celebrities and politicians. It affects everyone; it affects you. That’s why NCAC’s legal team fights on behalf of everyday people whose words, ideas, or creations are unfairly silenced. We empower individuals, support communities, and make justice louder than silence.
From filing amicus briefs in high-profile cases to providing insights into complex laws, we work to ensure that censorship is never left unchallenged.
The fight against censorship requires more than outrage — it requires strategy. NCAC’s legal advocacy focuses on ensuring that the First Amendment evolves with the times — never against them.
NCAC Files Amicus Brief Challenging California Video Game Law
Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association et al: The brief challenges a California law designed to prevent minors from purchasing "violent video games." The law requires that any violent video game "that is imported into or distributed in California for retail sale" be labeled with a two inch by two inch label marked "18."
NCAC Joins Brief in Snyder v. Phelps
In July, 2010, NCAC joins The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, The Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project, and The Pennsylvania Center for The First Amendment in a friend of the court brief in the Supreme Court in support of the right to protest.
Forget staging “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf”
This week, in a decision that is likely to limit what theaters decide to produce, Colorado's Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on theatrical smoking. The 2006 Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act prohibits smoking inside public buildings. This is something we welcome! However, contrary to the situation in other [...]
NCAC Files Amicus Brief Opposing Law Banning Images of “Animal Cruelty”
NCAC and the College Art Association recently filed an amici curiae brief in United States .v Stevens in the Supreme Court, heard October 6. Although the subject matter - images of animal cruelty - is extremely distasteful - the case raises critical First Amendment questions that would affect a wide variety of valuable expression and undermine fundamental constitutional principles.
Ward Churchill Redux
Even though a jury has now determined that Ward Churchill, a tenured professor at the University of Colorado, was fired as a result of his controversial views and in violation of his constitutional rights, his case remains controversial.
Fleeting Expletives and the 9-Second Nipple: The Supreme Court Defers to the FCC’s Decision Making in FCC v. Fox & FCC v. CBS
On Tuesday April 28, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the matter of FCC v. Fox Television Stations, which on its face appears to be hostile to free speech interests. In a 5-4 decision, the Court sided with the FCC, finding that the agency had not been arbitrary or capricious in its sanctioning of Fox Television Stations, Inc. over two instances of live broadcasts where the F- and S- words were uttered. The FCC had determined that these instances of “fleeting expletives” were indecent, but not protected by the First Amendment--- despite a long standing tradition of fleeting instances of indecent content being immune from FCC sanctions. Every cloud has its silver lining, however. This case’s silver lining is that it will ultimately be fantastic for free expression, in that Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing for the majority, declined to make a decision regarding the constitutionality of the FCC’s new policy regarding fleeting expletives, instead sending the case back to the lower court for further deliberation on this issue.