Is the 21st century's idea of “freedom of speech” based on precedent? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCan U.S. states establish state religions?Does the 1st Amendment restrict executive actions?Blasphemy in the Context of Freedom of SpeechWhat first amendment limits apply to law against “parading or demonstrating?”What are the limits on categorising someone's statements as 'hatred' in regard to freedom of speech?Arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights CommissionWhy are credit rating agencies in the US imune when giving false rating?How is the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” constitutional?In the United States, is Freedom of the Press absolute, or are there limits on it?Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech?

How to show a landlord what we have in savings?

How did scripture get the name bible?

Could a dragon use hot air to help it take off?

Is a distribution that is normal, but highly skewed, considered Gaussian?

How does a dynamic QR code work?

Arrows in tikz Markov chain diagram overlap

Could you use a laser beam as a modulated carrier wave for radio signal?

How can I prove that a state of equilibrium is unstable?

A hang glider, sudden unexpected lift to 25,000 feet altitude, what could do this?

Why do we say “un seul M” and not “une seule M” even though M is a “consonne”?

Which acid/base does a strong base/acid react when added to a buffer solution?

How dangerous is XSS

Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?

Mathematica command that allows it to read my intentions

Why did early computer designers eschew integers?

Traveling with my 5 year old daughter (as the father) without the mother from Germany to Mexico

Another proof that dividing by 0 does not exist -- is it right?

"Eavesdropping" vs "Listen in on"

Is it possible to create a QR code using text?

Can a PhD from a non-TU9 German university become a professor in a TU9 university?

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

Why was Sir Cadogan fired?

Is it possible to make a 9x9 table fit within the default margins?

Creating a script with console commands



Is the 21st century's idea of “freedom of speech” based on precedent?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCan U.S. states establish state religions?Does the 1st Amendment restrict executive actions?Blasphemy in the Context of Freedom of SpeechWhat first amendment limits apply to law against “parading or demonstrating?”What are the limits on categorising someone's statements as 'hatred' in regard to freedom of speech?Arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights CommissionWhy are credit rating agencies in the US imune when giving false rating?How is the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” constitutional?In the United States, is Freedom of the Press absolute, or are there limits on it?Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech?










1















Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.



First Amendment:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?










share|improve this question
























  • Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

    – user6726
    3 hours ago











  • While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

    – ohwilleke
    5 mins ago















1















Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.



First Amendment:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?










share|improve this question
























  • Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

    – user6726
    3 hours ago











  • While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

    – ohwilleke
    5 mins ago













1












1








1








Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.



First Amendment:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?










share|improve this question
















Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.



First Amendment:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?







united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment textualism






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







StephanS

















asked 3 hours ago









StephanSStephanS

38619




38619












  • Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

    – user6726
    3 hours ago











  • While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

    – ohwilleke
    5 mins ago

















  • Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

    – user6726
    3 hours ago











  • While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

    – ohwilleke
    5 mins ago
















Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

– user6726
3 hours ago





Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

– user6726
3 hours ago













While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

– ohwilleke
5 mins ago





While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

– ohwilleke
5 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














Trivially, yes



The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



The government can limit your speech



The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



Which is, in most cases, all government.



The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



It only restricts government



The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "617"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38677%2fis-the-21st-centurys-idea-of-freedom-of-speech-based-on-precedent%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    Trivially, yes



    The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



    Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



    The government can limit your speech



    The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



    They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



    It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



    Which is, in most cases, all government.



    The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



    Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



    It only restricts government



    The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



    It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.






    share|improve this answer





























      3














      Trivially, yes



      The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



      Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



      The government can limit your speech



      The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



      They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



      It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



      Which is, in most cases, all government.



      The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



      Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



      It only restricts government



      The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



      It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.






      share|improve this answer



























        3












        3








        3







        Trivially, yes



        The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



        Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



        The government can limit your speech



        The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



        They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



        It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



        Which is, in most cases, all government.



        The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



        Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



        It only restricts government



        The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



        It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.






        share|improve this answer















        Trivially, yes



        The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



        Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



        The government can limit your speech



        The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



        They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



        It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



        Which is, in most cases, all government.



        The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



        Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



        It only restricts government



        The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



        It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 hours ago

























        answered 3 hours ago









        Dale MDale M

        55.9k23579




        55.9k23579



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38677%2fis-the-21st-centurys-idea-of-freedom-of-speech-based-on-precedent%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

            Беларусь Змест Назва Гісторыя Геаграфія Сімволіка Дзяржаўны лад Палітычныя партыі Міжнароднае становішча і знешняя палітыка Адміністрацыйны падзел Насельніцтва Эканоміка Культура і грамадства Сацыяльная сфера Узброеныя сілы Заўвагі Літаратура Спасылкі НавігацыяHGЯOiТоп-2011 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2013 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2016 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2017 г. (па версіі ej.by)Нацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьШчыльнасць насельніцтва па краінахhttp://naviny.by/rubrics/society/2011/09/16/ic_articles_116_175144/А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Спробы засялення краю неандэртальскім чалавекам.І ў Менску былі мамантыА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіГ. Штыхаў. Балты і славяне ў VI—VIII стст.М. Клімаў. Полацкае княства ў IX—XI стст.Г. Штыхаў, В. Ляўко. Палітычная гісторыя Полацкай зямліГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахБеларускія землі ў складзе Вялікага Княства ЛітоўскагаЛюблінская унія 1569 г."The Early Stages of Independence"Zapomniane prawdy25 гадоў таму было аб'яўлена, што Язэп Пілсудскі — беларус (фота)Наша вадаДакументы ЧАЭС: Забруджванне тэрыторыі Беларусі « ЧАЭС Зона адчужэнняСведения о политических партиях, зарегистрированных в Республике Беларусь // Министерство юстиции Республики БеларусьСтатыстычны бюлетэнь „Полаўзроставая структура насельніцтва Рэспублікі Беларусь на 1 студзеня 2012 года і сярэднегадовая колькасць насельніцтва за 2011 год“Индекс человеческого развития Беларуси — не было бы нижеБеларусь занимает первое место в СНГ по индексу развития с учетом гендерного факцёраНацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьКанстытуцыя РБ. Артыкул 17Трансфармацыйныя задачы БеларусіВыйсце з крызісу — далейшае рэфармаванне Беларускі рубель — сусветны лідар па дэвальвацыяхПра змену коштаў у кастрычніку 2011 г.Бядней за беларусаў у СНД толькі таджыкіСярэдні заробак у верасні дасягнуў 2,26 мільёна рублёўЭканомікаГаласуем за ТОП-100 беларускай прозыСучасныя беларускія мастакіАрхитектура Беларуси BELARUS.BYА. Каханоўскі. Культура Беларусі ўсярэдзіне XVII—XVIII ст.Анталогія беларускай народнай песні, гуказапісы спеваўБеларускія Музычныя IнструментыБеларускі рок, які мы страцілі. Топ-10 гуртоў«Мясцовы час» — нязгаслая легенда беларускай рок-музыкіСЯРГЕЙ БУДКІН. МЫ НЯ ЗНАЕМ СВАЁЙ МУЗЫКІМ. А. Каладзінскі. НАРОДНЫ ТЭАТРМагнацкія культурныя цэнтрыПублічная дыскусія «Беларуская новая пьеса: без беларускай мовы ці беларуская?»Беларускія драматургі па-ранейшаму лепш ставяцца за мяжой, чым на радзіме«Працэс незалежнага кіно пайшоў, і дзяржаву турбуе яго непадкантрольнасць»Беларускія філосафы ў пошуках прасторыВсе идём в библиотекуАрхіваванаАб Нацыянальнай праграме даследавання і выкарыстання касмічнай прасторы ў мірных мэтах на 2008—2012 гадыУ космас — разам.У суседнім з Барысаўскім раёне пабудуюць Камандна-вымяральны пунктСвяты і абрады беларусаў«Мірныя бульбашы з малой краіны» — 5 непраўдзівых стэрэатыпаў пра БеларусьМ. Раманюк. Беларускае народнае адзеннеУ Беларусі скарачаецца колькасць злачынстваўЛукашэнка незадаволены мінскімі ўладамі Крадзяжы складаюць у Мінску каля 70% злачынстваў Узровень злачыннасці ў Мінскай вобласці — адзін з самых высокіх у краіне Генпракуратура аналізуе стан са злачыннасцю ў Беларусі па каэфіцыенце злачыннасці У Беларусі стабілізавалася крымінагеннае становішча, лічыць генпракурорЗамежнікі сталі здзяйсняць у Беларусі больш злачынстваўМУС Беларусі турбуе рост рэцыдыўнай злачыннасціЯ з ЖЭСа. Дазволіце вас абкрасці! Рэйтынг усіх службаў і падраздзяленняў ГУУС Мінгарвыканкама вырасАб КДБ РБГісторыя Аператыўна-аналітычнага цэнтра РБГісторыя ДКФРТаможняagentura.ruБеларусьBelarus.by — Афіцыйны сайт Рэспублікі БеларусьСайт урада БеларусіRadzima.org — Збор архітэктурных помнікаў, гісторыя Беларусі«Глобус Беларуси»Гербы и флаги БеларусиАсаблівасці каменнага веку на БеларусіА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіУ. Ксяндзоў. Сярэдні каменны век (мезаліт). Засяленне краю плямёнамі паляўнічых, рыбакоў і збіральнікаўА. Калечыц, М. Чарняўскі. Плямёны на тэрыторыі Беларусі ў новым каменным веку (неаліце)А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў, М. Чарняўскі. Гаспадарчыя заняткі ў каменным векуЭ. Зайкоўскі. Духоўная культура ў каменным векуАсаблівасці бронзавага веку на БеларусіФарміраванне супольнасцей ранняга перыяду бронзавага векуФотографии БеларусиРоля беларускіх зямель ва ўтварэнні і ўмацаванні ВКЛВ. Фадзеева. З гісторыі развіцця беларускай народнай вышыўкіDMOZGran catalanaБольшая российскаяBritannica (анлайн)Швейцарскі гістарычны15325917611952699xDA123282154079143-90000 0001 2171 2080n9112870100577502ge128882171858027501086026362074122714179пппппп

            ValueError: Expected n_neighbors <= n_samples, but n_samples = 1, n_neighbors = 6 (SMOTE) The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan SMOTE be applied over sequence of words (sentences)?ValueError when doing validation with random forestsSMOTE and multi class oversamplingLogic behind SMOTE-NC?ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)SmoteBoost: Should SMOTE be ran individually for each iteration/tree in the boosting?solving multi-class imbalance classification using smote and OSSUsing SMOTE for Synthetic Data generation to improve performance on unbalanced dataproblem of entry format for a simple model in KerasSVM SMOTE fit_resample() function runs forever with no result