Renowned Legal Expert Sujit Choudhry Talks About Difference Between Free Speech and Hate Speech

After a fatal killing at a rally in Virginia a couple of years ago, there has been a debate over what constitutes hate speech. There are some people who believe that some speech and protests are a part of hate speech. With hate speech, a person or group expresses a negative opinion towards another group and threatens violence against them. Some believe that the recent events that took place at the rally constitute hate speech. However, the protesters and the counter protesters were well within their rights to express their viewpoints as free speech. As a result, the people who attended the rally were not guilty of hate speech.

 Sujit Choudhry is a well known scholar and legal expert in North America. Choudhry has many years of experience comparing legal systems of other nations as well as reviewing their constitutions. During his career, Sujit Choudhry has helped international leaders and government officials find ways to reform their legal system. One of the most significant things that he has done was help national governments devise and draft a modern constitution. This has helped these nations complete much needed legal reform. As a legal expert, Choudhry provided his perspective on the difference between hate speech and free speech. In the United States, free speech is almost unlimited unless illegal activity occurs.

For two decades, Sujit Choudhry has had a very successful career as both a consultant and as an educator. One of his most fulfilling experiences was when he was affiliated with the Supreme Court of Canada. While affiliated with the court, he was involved in interpreting the nation’s laws and evaluating its constitution. He was therefore, very active in helping political leaders and government officials get a better grasp of how the nation’s legal system functions. Sujit Choudhry would also get involved in the educational sector when he joined a couple of leading North American law schools.

Find out more here

Seasoned Lawyer Jeremy Goldstein Recommends Non-compete Agreements To Protect Your Business

Veteran lawyer Jeremy Goldstein has committed and dedicated his career in employment law. He earned his law degree from the New York University School of Law. Before taking up his law degree, Jeremy took another high-level degree at the University of Chicago. He also graduated with flying colors from Cornwell University.


He worked as an associate lawyer in a large firm in New York City before establishing his own law firm. He handled many legal transactions for various large corporations such as mergers and acquisitions. Among these corporations include Phillips Petroleum Company, Miller Brewing Company, Duke Energy, MNBA Corporation, Verizon Wireless, Merck, and Dow Chemical Company among others.


While handling their legal aspects, Jeremy realized how common conflicts of interest and contract enforcement are. After conducting a series of research, Jeremy Goldstein founded his own firm and named it Jeremy L. Goldstein and Associates. The firm especially concentrates on employment law associated with executive compensation and corporate governance.


Spanning for more than a decade, the firm still continues to serve upper-level management teams and CEOs. Until now, Jeremy L. Goldstein and Associates remains dedicated to offering unparalleled legal counsel and representation for all matters associated with the employment niche. As a lawyer, Jeremy is passionate about making sure that the rights and interests of his clients are well-protected.


One of the specific areas that he offers legal counsel is that which involves non-compete agreements. These agreements are also known as restrictive covenants or non-compete covenants. This kind of agreement is intended to protect the rights of employers in particular situations. Unknown to many employers, they might be exposed to unnecessary risks if they do not execute tailor-fitted agreements based on their specific needs.


One of the crucial roles of a non-compete agreement is to specify the length of time your former employee must wait before applying for employment with your competitor or working in the same industry within a particular geographic location. Employers might have several reasons why they would want to restrict the effect of competition from previous employees. This could include employees access to patented formulae or strategies that they could use for their own personal gain or gain influence from direct competitors, which could result to lose to the business of his previous employer.


Courts, in general, however, may not at all enforce some non-compete agreements they feel are extremely restrictive that employees could feel they are coerced into staying with the company. This kind of agreement must be written in a way that it safeguards the interest of the business from using critical corporate information that would ultimately harm the business. Hiring a seasoned lawyer like Jeremy Goldstein to prepare the agreement so the court could deem it as reasonable to both parties is crucial.


Visit to learn more.