title: Singam II

text: The third part of the "Singam" film series was initially scheduled to enter production in December 2015. Suriya and Anushka will reprise their roles. Production on the film was, however, postponed due to climatic conditions in Chennai. Principal photography eventually began on 17 December with the filming of a song sequence, while regular shooting was scheduled to happen later in the month, though it was later moved to January 2016. Regular shooting commenced on 7 January 2016, with the film's title being revealed as "Singam 3". After a long gap, continuous postponement of the film release took place. In that while the film's title was changed from Singam 3 to Si 3 for acquiring tax exemption.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, It can be restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The First Amendment's freedom of speech right not only proscribes most government restrictions on the content of speech and ability to speak, but also protects the right to receive information,


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons, restrictions on the use of untruths to harm others (slander and libel), and communications while a person is in prison. When a speech restriction is challenged in court, it is presumed invalid and the government bears the burden of convincing the court that the restriction is constitutional.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: During colonial times, English speech regulations were rather restrictive. The English criminal common law of seditious libel made criticizing the government a crime. Lord Chief Justice John Holt, writing in 1704–1705, explained the rationale for the prohibition: "For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it." The objective truth of a statement in violation of the libel law was not a defense.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Until 1694 England had an elaborate system of licensing; no publication was allowed without the accompaniment of the government-granted license.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The colonies originally had very different views on the protection of free speech. During English colonialism in America, there were fewer prosecutions for seditious libel than England, but other controls over dissident speech existed.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The most stringent controls on speech in the colonial period were controls that outlawed or otherwise censored speech that was considered blasphemous in a religious sense. A 1646 Massachusetts law, for example, punished persons who denied the immortality of the soul. In 1612, a Virginia governor declared the death penalty for a person that denied the Trinity under Virginia's "Laws Divine, Moral and Martial", which also outlawed blasphemy, speaking badly of ministers and royalty, and "disgraceful words".


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: More recent scholarship, focusing on seditious speech in the 17th-century colonies (when there was no press), has shown that from 1607 to 1700 the colonists' freedom of speech expanded dramatically, laying a foundation for the political dissent that flowered among the Revolutionary generation.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 was a seditious libel prosecution for Zenger's publication of criticisms of the Governor of New York, William Cosby. Andrew Hamilton represented Zenger and argued that truth should be a defense to the crime of seditious libel, but the court rejected this argument. Hamilton persuaded the jury, however, to disregard the law and to acquit Zenger. The case is considered a victory for freedom of speech as well as a prime example of jury nullification. The case marked the beginning of a trend of greater acceptance and tolerance of free speech.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In the 1780s after the American Revolutionary War, debate over the adoption of a new Constitution resulted in a division between Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton who favored a strong federal government, and Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry who favored a weaker federal government.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: During and after the Constitution ratification process, Anti-Federalists and state legislatures expressed concern that the new Constitution placed too much emphasis on the power of the federal government. The drafting and eventual adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was, in large part, a result of these concerns, as the Bill of Rights limited the power of the federal government.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In 1798, Congress, which contained several of the ratifiers of the First Amendment at the time, adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts. The laws prohibited the publication of "false, scandalous, and malicious writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame ... or to bring them ... into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them ... hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States".


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The law did allow truth as a defense and required proof of malicious intent. The 1798 Act nevertheless made ascertainment of the intent of the framers regarding the First Amendment somewhat difficult, as some of the members of Congress that supported the adoption of the First Amendment also voted to adopt the 1798 Act. The Federalists under President John Adams aggressively used the law against their rivals, the Democratic-Republicans. The Alien and Sedition Acts were a major political issue in the 1800 election, and after he was elected President, Thomas Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under the Act. The Act expired and the Supreme Court never ruled on its constitutionality.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In "New York Times v. Sullivan", the Court declared "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964).


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: From the late 1800s to the mid-1900s, various laws restricted speech in ways that are today not allowed, mainly due to societal norms. Possibly inspired by foul language and the widely available pornography he encountered during the American Civil War, Anthony Comstock advocated for government suppression of speech that offended Victorian morality. He convinced the government of New York State to create the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, in 1873, and inspired the creation of the Watch and Ward Society in Boston in 1878. City and state governments monitored newspapers, books, theater, comedy acts, and films for offensive content, and enforced laws with arrests, impoundment of materials, and fines. The Comstock laws passed by Congress (and related state laws) prohibited sending materials through the U.S. mail that included pornography; information about contraception, abortion, and sex toys; and personal letters mentioning sexual activities. Regulation of American film by state and local governments was supplemented by the Motion Picture Production Code from to 1930 to 1968, in an industry effort to preempt federal regulation. The similar industry-backed Comics Code Authority lasted from 1954 to 2011.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Some laws were motivated not by morality, but concerns over national security. The Office of Censorship suppressed communication of information of military importance during World War II, including by journalists and all correspondence going into or out of the United States. McCarthyism from the 1940s to the 1950s resulted in the suppression of advocacy of Communism, and the Hollywood blacklist. This included some prosecutions under the Smith Act of 1940.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: As a result of the jurisprudence of the Warren Court in the mid-to-late 20th century, the Court has moved towards a baseline default rule under which freedom of speech is generally presumed to be protected, unless a specific exception applies. Therefore, apart from certain narrow exceptions, the government normally cannot regulate the "content" of speech. In 1971, in "Cohen v. California", Justice John Marshall Harlan II, citing "Whitney v. California", emphasized that the First Amendment operates to protect the inviolability of ""a marketplace of ideas"", while Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall cogently explained in 1972 that:


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Core political speech is the discussion of political matters, including commentary on governmental laws and policies, discussion of public issues which may be subject to governmental action, commentary on political parties, individual politicians, political candidates and so on. This includes the right to publicly criticize the government and its leaders, potentially in very harsh or offensive terms. Core political speech is the most highly guarded form of speech because of its importance to a functional republic. In Buckley v. Valeo, for instance, the Supreme Court wrote:


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Restrictions placed upon core political speech must weather strict scrutiny analysis or they will be struck down. The Supreme Court has ruled that suffrage itself is not political "speech" and thus can be subjected to significant regulations, and the right to run for office may likewise be restricted. Calling for such restrictions to be altered or abolished, however, is protected under the First Amendment, and certain kinds of suffrage restrictions are already prohibited by other parts of the constitution.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Not wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment is commercial speech, which is speech that "propose[s] a commercial transaction", as defined by "Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn." in 1978. Such speech still has expressive value although it is being uttered in a marketplace ordinarily regulated by the state. In 1980, "Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission" held that restrictions of commercial speech are subject to a four-element intermediate scrutiny. "Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc." (2011) casts doubt upon whether commercial speech still exists as a distinct type of speech.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Expressive conduct, also called "symbolic speech" or "speech acts," is nonverbal conduct that intends to communicate a message. Examples include creating or destroying an object when performed as a statement (such as flag burning in a political protest), silent marches and parades intended to convey a message, clothing bearing meaningful symbols (such as anti-war armbands), body language, messages written in code, ideas and structures embodied as computer code ("software"), mathematical and scientific formulae, and illocutionary acts that convey by implication an attitude, request, or opinion.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Expressive conduct is recognized by federal court decisions as being protected under the First Amendment as a form of speech, although this is not expressly written as such in the document.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: For example, seen in light of the First Amendment, computer code is a "way to speak" about how a problem is solved, using the precise terms a computer might be given as directions, and flag burning is a "way to speak" or express forcefully of one's views opposing the acts or political position of the relevant country. Significantly, the possibility exists for a single speech act to be protected or not "depending upon context and intention". For example, there may be a First Amendment distinction between burning a flag in protest and the same act performed as mere wanton vandalism.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Some expressions have an ambiguous, difficult to articulate, unintended, or indiscernible meaning. These include instrumental music, abstract art, and nonsense. These are generally included in protected "speech", but some of the justifications for doing so do not apply. In the 1995 decision "Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston", the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the art of Jackson Pollock, the expressionist music of Arnold Schoenberg, and the semi-nonsense poem Jabberwocky are protected. This stands in contrast to, for example, Nazi Germany, which banned what it called "degenerate art" and "degenerate music".


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In the 2010 decision "Kleinman v. City of San Marcos", the U.S. Fifth Circuit noted a number of cases where artistic expressive elements were mixed with non-speech elements (such as an artistically painted junked car or clothing decorated with graffiti art). In each case, the courts chose to apply full First Amendment protection, but used intermediate scrutiny and upheld the content-neutral government regulations at issue (e.g. no junked cars displayed on public roads, time and place restrictions on sidewalk vendors).


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In the case "Morse v. Frederick", the defendant claimed the slogan "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" "intended" to provoke amusement or disgust but not advocate anything, but the Supreme Court ruled it could be punished under the school speech doctrine because a reasonable person could "interpret" it as advocating illegal drug use (which was against school policy).


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The Supreme Court has recognized several different types of laws that restrict speech, and subjects each type of law to a different level of scrutiny.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Content-based restrictions "are presumptively unconstitutional regardless of the government’s benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of animus toward the ideas contained in the regulated speech." Restrictions that require examining the content of speech to be applied must pass strict scrutiny.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Content-based restrictions can either discriminate based on viewpoint or subject matter. An example of a law regulating the subject matter of speech would be a city ordinance that forbids all picketing in front of a school except for labor picketing. This law would amount to subject matter discrimination because it favors one subject over another in deciding who it will allow to speak. An example of a law that regulates a speaker's viewpoint would be a policy of a government official who permitted opponents of abortion to speak on government property but banned proponents of legal abortion care because of their views would be engaged in ‘‘viewpoint discrimination.’’ Restrictions that apply to certain viewpoints but not others face the highest level of scrutiny, and are usually overturned, unless they fall into one of the court's special exceptions. An example of this is found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez" in 2001. In this case, the Court held that government subsidies cannot be used to discriminate against a specific instance of viewpoint advocacy.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The Court pointed out in "Snyder v. Phelps" (2011) that one way to ascertain whether a restriction is content-based versus content-neutral is to consider if the speaker had delivered a "different" message under exactly the same circumstances: "A group of parishioners standing at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said 'God Bless America' and 'God Loves You,' would not have been subjected to liability. It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages."


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: "Grayned v. City of Rockford" (1972) summarized the time, place, manner concept: "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Time, place, and manner restrictions must withstand intermediate scrutiny. Note that any regulations that would force speakers to change how or what they say do not fall into this category (so the government cannot restrict one medium even if it leaves open another). "Ward v. Rock Against Racism" (1989) held that time, place, or manner restrictions must:


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to so-called free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas – the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone. Civil libertarians often claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Time, place, and manner restrictions refer to a legal doctrine enforced under the United States Constitution and Supreme Court. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines time, place, and manner restrictions as "[A] restriction on the time, place, or manner of expression that is justified when it is neutral as to content and serves a significant government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. The goal of time, place and manner restrictions is to regulate speech in a way that still protects freedom of speech.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute, and therefore subject to restrictions. Time, place, and manner restrictions are relatively self-explanatory. Time restrictions regulate when expression can take place; place restrictions regulate where expression can take place; and manner restrictions regulate how expression can take place. A restriction may occur if someone is protesting loudly in front of someone's house in a neighborhood in the middle of the night, or if someone was sitting in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour, for example. These actions would cause problems for other people, so restricting speech in terms of time, place, and manner addresses a legitimate societal concern. Restricting this speech would be constitutional because the restrictions are content neutral, meaning they would restrict anyone from saying anything in these situations, no matter what their message is; they are narrowly drawn, meaning the restriction was examined specifically for the case in question to determine how to serve the governmental interest at stake; the restrictions serve a significant governmental interest, meaning other fundamental rights are important to citizens, such as sleeping peacefully at night or people getting to work or home from work; and there are plenty of alternative methods of communicating their message, such as writing an editorial in the paper or moving to the sidewalk at a different time in the day.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: One of the earliest mentions of the principle of time, place, and manner restrictions comes in the "Cox v. Louisiana" (1965) case. Justice Goldberg delivered the opinion and stated, "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time." From this, the United States Supreme Court doctrine of time, place, and manner restrictions emerged.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution declares that "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." It is easy to mistakenly interpret the First Amendment as granting people the right to say whatever they want, whenever, and wherever they want. However, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted that the First Amendment was never intended to provide such power, because it does not protect speech at all times and in all places. The Court has consistently ruled that the government has the power to impose limits on free speech in regard to its time, place, and manner of delivery. As noted in "Clark" v. "Community for Creative Non-Violence" (1984)"," "... [time, place, and manner] restrictions ... are valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." These restrictions are proved constitutional time and time again, in many Supreme Court cases. It is important to understand the limits to the protection of freedom of speech by learning about time, place, and manner restrictions.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Time, place, and manner restrictions are often linked with the public forum doctrine. The Supreme Court has established three types of forums: traditional public forums, designated forums, and nonpublic forums.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Traditional public forums include public areas, such as parks and sidewalks. These areas have the strongest protections under the First Amendment. Although, traditional public forums are still subject to traditional time, place, and manner restrictions, meaning restrictions must be content-neutral, serve a significant governmental interest, and allow for ample alternatives. As noted in "United States Postal Service" v. "Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations" (1981)"," "The First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." Justice Marshall in "Grayned" v. "City of Rockford" (1972), also noted something similar, saying "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time." The power of restriction has been seen in many cases, such as in "The" "City of Chicago" v. "Alexander" (2014) case when the Occupy movement was restricted because the park was closed and they were not allowed to protest there during that time. Nevertheless, speech cannot be discriminated against because of the views of the speaker, or the content of their speech. These are generally called View-Point and Content-Based Limitations. Some people argue that time, place, and manner restrictions are relied on too heavily by free speech doctrine, resulting in less free speech allowed in public forums. This view is highly contested. Other people, such as Justice Pierce, who delivered the opinion in "The City of Chicago" v. "Alexander" (2014)"," argue restrictions are only meant to defer speech, in order to limit problems that are put on society.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: A designated forum is usually public property the government opens for public expression, such as theatres and state schools. The difference between traditional public forums and designated public forums is in a designated public forum the government may limit access to the area to only certain groups, speakers, or subjects, so long as their rules are consistent. Designated public forums are subject to the same restrictions as traditional public forums, meaning the time, place, and manner restrictions must be content-neutral, serve a governmental interest, and allow ample alternatives. Restrictions in a designated forum can be seen in cases such as "Widmar v. Vincent" (1981) and "City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin PERC" (1976)"."


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Nonpublic forums include airport terminals and internal mail systems. In these areas the government has significant control over the speech they allow in these forums because the government acts like a private owner here. This means the government may restrict any speech, as long as the restrictions are reasonable, and do not come in to play because a public official wants the speech restricted. Therefore, content may be restricted because of the subject or the speaker. However, the restrictions must align with the purpose of the area and be viewpoint neutral. This doctrine has been applied to cases such as "Perry Education Association" v. "Perry Local Educators' Association" (1983) and "Hazelwood School District" v. "Kuhlmeier" (1988).


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Time, place, and manner restrictions are intended to allow convenience and order to prevail. Some examples of time, place, and manner cases include: "Grayned" v. "Rockford" (1972), "Heffron" v. "International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc." (1981), "Madsen" v. "Women's Health Center" (1994), and recently "Hill" v. "Colorado" (2000). As you can see, most time, place, and manner cases involve the government as one of the parties in the case.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Because time, place, and manner restrictions put value on convenience and order, there is certain behavior that is not permitted. For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded place when there is no fire. This action would cause an uproar of chaos, and has the potential to cause immediate harm to others. For those reasons, this action would not qualify as a protected right under the First Amendment. 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 theatre and causing panic." While free speech is important in our society, there are other values in our society that are equally important, such as public order and public peace. The role of time, place, and manner restrictions must be balanced with conflicting values in our society.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: It is important to understand how judges and other governmental entities decide what speech to limit in regard to time, place, and manner. As previously stated, in order for the Supreme Court and other governmental entities to impose time, place, and manner restrictions, they must decide that the restrictions are content neutral, narrowly tailored, serve a significant governmental interest, and allow other alternative methods of communication. If the restrictions can pass these four requirements, they will align with the First Amendment restriction provisions. Of course, these restrictions will vary from case to case. Ideally, suppressing speech is considered wrong, but in some cases, it is necessary to restrict speech for the greater good of society. It must be decided that the speech is a nuisance in regard to its time, place, or manner of delivery, such as creating a clear and present danger. If there is a problem with the time, place, or manner of delivery of the speech, Congress has the right to limit such speech.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: As noted in "The City of Chicago v. Alexander" (2014)"," "The [F]irst [A]mendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired. A state may therefore impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place or manner of constitutionally protected speech occurring in a public forum." It is permitted to restrict speech in terms of time, place, and manner, so long as there are ample alternatives available. The ample alternative provision can cause confusion for those trying to understand time, place, and manner restrictions. What qualifies as an acceptable alternative? An alternative does not need to be the first choice of a way to communicate, nor does it need to be the same method of communication"." That is, if the original method of communication was vocal, an acceptable alternative could be written. In fact, an ample alternative does not even have to reach the same audience as the original speech"." In the case of "The City of Chicago" v. "Alexander" (2014)"," an ample alternative to protesting in Grant Park after hours could have been to protest on the sidewalk across the street, or to protest in the morning in the park when it reopened. It is important to remember that time, place, and manner restrictions are not intended to restrict the content of what is being said, instead they restrict when, where, or how the message is being communicated.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: As "The City of Chicago" v. "Alexander" (2014) case pointed out, in "United States" v. "O'Brien" (1968) the court created a test for the content neutral provision"." The "O'Brien" (1968) court declared, "... a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.[33]" Content neutrality is an essential provision to meet because if a law lacks content neutrality due to targeting a particular viewpoint or means of expression, it will often violate other constitutional principles, such as the equal protection clause.[34] Expressing content neutrality is essential in successfully limiting speech through time, place, and manner restrictions in a public forum.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must be able to show that punishment after the fact is not a sufficient remedy, and show that allowing the speech would "surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" ("New York Times Co. v. United States"). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of "Near v. Minnesota" in 1931. However, the 1988 case of "Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier" was argued to be a means of prior restraint due to a school principal eliminating content and topics from the school newspaper that was written by students at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri. The U.S. Supreme Court deemed the school was not in violation of students' first amendment rights because the paper was sponsored by the school that upheld rules and regulations about inappropriate articles.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Despite this strong position against prior restraint, numerous laws have been enacted at the state level that restrict a doctor's speech on politically charged issues such as abortion, gun safety and industrial chemicals.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Laws against commercial fraud, counterfeit currency, and perjury have been upheld within certain limits, but some false statements of fact have been protected.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Speech that incites imminent lawless action was originally banned under the weaker clear and present danger test established by "Schenck v. United States", but this test has since been overturned by the imminent lawless action test established in "Brandenburg v. Ohio".


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Inflammatory words that are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace. Use of such words is not necessarily protected "free speech" under the First Amendment.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is a type of speech which is not legally protected. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The 1998 Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act in Alabama applies to sex toys. The similar 1973 Texas obscenity statute (updated in 2003) was declared unconstitutional in 2008.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Limits placed on libel and slander attach civil liability and have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of "Hustler Magazine v. Falwell" made famous in the movie "The People vs. Larry Flynt". "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" established the actual malice standard, a high bar for public figure plaintiffs. Making false statements in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government is also a crime.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline as per the case of "Garcetti v. Ceballos". This applies also to private contractors that have the government as a client. The First Amendment only protects employees from government employers albeit only when speaking publicly outside their official duties in the public interest "Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist.", updated and clarified by "Lane v. Franks". Speech is not protected from private sector disciplinary action.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: A number of cases consider speech related to or required by an employer, or speech retaliated against by a third party such as an employer. The case "Lane vs. Burrows" (previously Lane vs. Franks) considers a number of these matters and summarizes the outcome. A person who testifies in a court, and where that testimony is not part of their employment duties, testifies as a citizen and has First Amendment protection, whereas a person whose speech is an actual part of their duties and is not merely "related" to their duties may have no such protection.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The issues raised in such cases include the overriding need for persons in court to feel safe to speak the truth, and to in fact speak the truth; the requirement of employers to be able to act if an employee speaks in a manner damaging to the employer; the rights of whistleblowers; the benefit to society if people who know the reality of a matter and are well informed of it, are able to speak of it.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District" (1969), the Supreme Court extended broad First Amendment protection to children attending public schools, prohibiting censorship unless there is "substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others". Several subsequent rulings have affirmed or narrowed this protection. "Bethel School District v. Fraser" (1986) supported disciplinary action against a student whose campaign speech was filled with sexual innuendo, and determined to be "indecent" but not "obscene". "Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier" (1988) allowed censorship in school newspapers which had not been established as forums for free student expression. "Guiles v. Marineau" (2006) affirmed the right of a student to wear a T-shirt mocking President George W. Bush, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. "Morse v. Frederick" (2007) supported the suspension of a student holding a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" at a school-supervised event which was not on school grounds. In "Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District", an appeals court struck down a school dress code and literature distribution policy for being vague and unnecessarily prohibitive of criticism against the school district.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Such protections also apply to public colleges and universities; for example, student newspapers which have been established as forums for free expression have been granted broad protection by appeals courts.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Publishing, gathering, or collecting national security information is not protected speech in the United States. Information related to "the national defense" is protected even though no harm to the national security is intended or is likely to be caused through its disclosure. Non-military information with the potential to cause serious damage to the national security is only protected from willful disclosure with the requisite intent or knowledge regarding the potential harm. The unauthorized creation, publication, sale, or transfer of photographs or sketches of vital defense installations or equipment as designated by the President is prohibited. The knowing and willful disclosure of certain classified information is prohibited. The unauthorized communication by anyone of "Restricted Data", or an attempt or conspiracy to communicate such data, is prohibited. It is prohibited for a person who learns of the identity of a covert agent through a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents" to disclose the identity to any individual not authorized access to classified information, with reason to believe that such activities would impair U.S. foreign intelligence efforts.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In addition to the criminal penalties, the use of employment contracts, loss of government employment, monetary penalties, non-disclosure agreements, forfeiture of property, injunctions, revocation of passports, and prior restraint are used to deter such speech.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The Voluntary Tender Act of 1917 gave the Commissioner of Patents the authority to withhold certification from inventions that might harm U.S. national security, and to turn the invention over to the United States government for its own use. It was replaced in 1951 with the Invention Secrecy Act which prevented inventors from publishing inventions or sharing the information. Both attached criminal penalties to subjected inventors. The United States was under a declared state of emergency from 1950–1974, after which peacetime secrecy orders were available.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The government issued between approximately 4,100 to 5,000 orders per year from 1959 to 1974, a peak of 6,193 orders in 1991, and approximately 5,200 per year between from 1991 to 2003. Certain areas of research such as atomic energy and cryptography consistently fall within their gamut. The government has placed secrecy orders on cold fusion, space technology, radar missile systems, and Citizens Band radio voice scramblers, and attempts have been made to extend them to optical-engineering research and vacuum technology.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 automatically classifies "all data concerning (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; (2) the production of special nuclear material; or (3) the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy". The government has attempted and failed to prohibit publication of nuclear information, including bomb design, in "Scientific American" in 1950 and "The Progressive" in 1979.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: of 1999, a bill focused on phosphate prospecting and compensation owed to the Menominee tribe, added making it an offence "to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction" either intending or knowing that the learner/viewer intends "that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence". This is in addition to other federal laws preventing the use and dissemination of bombmaking information for criminal purposes. The law was first successfully used against an 18-year-old anarchist in 2003, for distribution of information which has since been republished freely.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: While personal freedom of speech is usually respected, freedom of press, and mass publishing meet with some restrictions. Some of the recent issues include:


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In 2002, the United States was ranked 17th of 167 countries in the annual worldwide Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders. "The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the September 11 attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings." In the 2006 index the United States fell further to 53rd of 168 countries; indeed, "relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated" as it became suspicious of journalists who questioned the "War on Terrorism". The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatened journalists whose investigations did not pertain to terrorism. The United States improved, moving up to 48th place in 2007, however, and to 20th in 2010. In the following years, the rank again declined, placing the United States 45th in 2020.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In a 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court extended the full protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in "Reno v. ACLU", a decision that struck down portions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a law that prohibited "indecent" online communication. The court's decision extended the constitutional protections given to books, magazines, films, and spoken expression to materials published on the Internet. Congress tried a second time to regulate the content of the Internet with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). In 2002, the Supreme Court again ruled in "American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft" that any limitations on the Internet are unconstitutional.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In "United States v. American Library Association" (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving e-rate discounts to install content-control software as a condition of receiving federal funding. The justices said that any First Amendment concerns were addressed by the provisions in the Children's Internet Protection Act that permit adults to ask librarians to disable the filters or unblock individual sites.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment only prohibits the US Congress (and, by extension, those that derive their powers from Congress) from doing so. Starting with the 1925 U.S. Supreme Court decision "Gitlow v. New York", this prohibition has been incorporated to apply to state and local governments as well, based on the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: A major issue in freedom of speech jurisprudence has been whether the First Amendment should be interpreted to merely run against these state actors, or whether it can run against private actors as well. Specifically, the issue is whether private landowners should be permitted to use the machinery of government to exclude others from engaging in free speech on their property (which means balancing the speakers' First Amendment rights against the Takings Clause). The right of freedom of speech within private shopping centers owned by others has been vigorously litigated under both the federal and state Constitutions, most notably in the cases "Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner" (1972) and "Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins" (1980).


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Privately owned social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are not bound by the First Amendment. Platforms have developed regulations and procedures of their own, attempting to balance free expression by their users against the moderation or removal of objectionable or harmful speech. In the course of developing private policies and procedures they have in several cases employed concepts or standards developed by U.S. courts in free speech cases, such as the public figure doctrine developed since "New York Times v. Sullivan".


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: Some observers have decried an erosion of free speech due to widespread use of the Internet and social media, which has allowed large groups of people who disapprove of particular speech have been able to swarm upon certain speakers and harass them with death and rape threats, send SWAT teams by making false reports to police, trigger boycotts of businesses, and in at least one case motivate a shooting. Targets have included a Massachusetts businessman who was seen in a photo apparently supporting Donald Trump, female video game designers and commentators, a diner where an anti-Trump employee made a negative comment to a pro-Trump customer, a public relations executive who tweeted an offensive joke before boarding a plane, and even victims of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting accused by anti-gun-control activists of faking the event.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: First Amendment protections apply to public colleges and universities in the United States, significantly limiting the ability of school administrations or government bodies to impose restrictive speech codes at public institutions of higher education. However, much of the controversy over free expression in American colleges and universities has dealt with other questions of institutional policies, questions of academic freedom, and the climate of opinion on campus at both public and private institutions.


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In July 2014, the University of Chicago released the "Chicago Statement," a free speech policy statement designed to combat censorship on campus. This statement was later adopted by a number of top-ranked universities including Princeton University, Washington University in St. Louis, Johns Hopkins University, and Columbia University. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit legal advocacy group that focuses on campus speech issues, publishes annual "College Free Speech Rankings" based on their comparative assessment of campus speech policies, tolerance for controversial speakers, administrative support for free speech, and surveys of student attitudes towards speech on campus. Since 2011, the group has also published a list of the “worst colleges for free speech.”


title: Freedom of speech in the United States

text: In the 1980s-1990s and the 2010s-2020s, public debate over campus speech policies and the status of free speech on campus often turned on the question of whether American campuses provided an open or a hostile environment for the discussion of conservative or right-wing views, or for critical debate or "heterodox" approaches to liberal politics or social justice activism. Journalists such as David Brooks (commentator) and Robby Soave have criticized student activists' efforts to heckle or shut down controversial invited speakers, which they argue amounts to a heckler's veto on campus speech. The sociologist Musa al-Gharbi (writing for Heterodox Academy) and the legal advocate Greg Lukianoff (president of FIRE) have argued that college administrations have chilled or limited speech on campus through the partisan use of censorship and disciplinary proceedings that infringe on academic freedom. Other commentators such as "Vox"'s Zack Beauchamp have disputed the claim that American college campuses are facing a "free-speech crisis," arguing that "incidents of speech by students or professors being suppressed are relatively rare," and are not directed along consistent partisan lines. Chris Quintana, writing in "The Chronicle of Higher Education", argued that administration threats to academic freedom were in fact more likely to target controversial liberal professors than to be directed against conservative faculty.


title: Montie Rissell

text: Montie Ralph Rissell (born November 28, 1958), also known as Monte, is an American serial killer and rapist who raped and murdered five women between 1976 and 1977 in Alexandria, Virginia, where he lived.


title: Montie Rissell

text: Rissell lived the first seven years of his life in his hometown of Wellington, Kansas. Rissell lived with his mother, who was married and divorced twice by the time Rissell was 12. Rissell's biological father left the home when Rissell was seven years old. Rissell had two older siblings: a brother, Harold, and a sister.


title: Montie Rissell

text: By the age of 14, Rissell had committed his first rape. He was charged with a series of petty crimes and was institutionalized in 1973. Shortly after his release in 1975, he was arrested for attempted robbery after he attempted to rob a woman with a knife in an elevator near his home. He received a five-year suspended sentence and dropped out of T. C. Williams High School at the age of 17.


title: Montie Rissell

text: Rissell was reportedly angry with his ex-girlfriend after he saw her with another man. On August 4, 1976, Rissell saw 26-year-old Aura Marina Gabor, a sex worker living in the same apartment complex as Rissell on the 400 block of North Armistead Street in Alexandria. Rissell claimed he grew angry with her after she "allowed" him to have sex with her and she made it seem like she enjoyed it, so he drowned her in a nearby ravine.


title: Montie Rissell

text: The second murder occurred in March 1977, when Rissell raped and stabbed 22-year-old McDonald's manager trainee, Ursula Miltenberger, near the Hamlet Apartments. Her body was found March 6 in a Fairfax woods.


title: Montie Rissell

text: The third murder victim was 27-year-old Gladys Ross Bradley, a post office clerk and resident of Hamlet Apartments. Sometime in April 1977, Rissell waited outside her house with a steak knife from his mother's kitchen. He raped her twice, then dragged her by her feet to a nearby creek, where he then drowned her. Her body was found April 29, 1977.


title: Montie Rissell

text: The fourth murder victim was 34-year-old Aletha Byrd, a personnel counselor at the Woodward & Lothrop department store at Tysons Corner Center. Aletha had been missing from her home since April 10, 1977. She was found dead with multiple stab wounds on May 17 in a wooded area.


title: Montie Rissell

text: The fifth and final victim was 24-year-old Jeanette McClelland, a graphics design proofreader at Bru-El Graphics and also a resident of Hamlet Apartments. She was found raped and stabbed 100 times in a culvert near Shirley Highway on May 5, 1977. On May 18, police (who had Rissell under surveillance due to his being a suspect) searched Rissell's car and found Byrd's wallet, keys, and comb. Police later confirmed that Rissell's fingerprints were found on Miltenberger's car. Rissell confessed to killing all five women.


title: Montie Rissell

text: Rissell was charged with abducting, raping and murdering the five women. However, because he pleaded guilty to the murder charges, the abduction and rape charges were dropped. Rissell was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences on October 11, 1977. He was 18 years old at the time of his sentencing.


title: Montie Rissell

text: Rissell became eligible for parole in 1995, which was heavily protested by the victims' family members and the community. Since then, Rissell has been granted an annual parole hearing each November; he has been denied parole each time.


title: Montie Rissell

text: Rissell was previously incarcerated at Augusta Correctional Center, and is currently incarcerated at Pocahontas State Correctional Center in Virginia.


title: Montie Rissell

text: Rissell was featured in season 1, episode 4 of the 2017 Netflix crime drama, "Mindhunter"; actor Sam Strike portrayed him.


title: Eurowings Discover

text: Eurowings Discover is a German airline headquartered in Frankfurt. It is owned by the Lufthansa Group and serves leisure destinations around the Mediterranean, North America and the Caribbean from its bases at Frankfurt Airport and Munich Airport.


title: Eurowings Discover

text: Eurowings Discover started operations on 24 July 2021, flying from Frankfurt to Mombasa and Zanzibar with A330, having obtained its air operator's certificate. It is considered to be the main competitor of German leisure carrier Condor which serves several of the routes Eurowings Discover will also take up.


title: Eurowings Discover

text: The carrier has already expanded its network to Punta Cana, Windhoek and Victoria Falls. Later in 2021 Eurowings Discover was added flights to Las Vegas, Mauritius, Bridgetown, Montego Bay, Varadero, Canary Islands, Egypt, and Morocco. The fleet is supposed to grow to 10 A320s and 11 A330s by mid 2022.


title: Eurowings Discover

text: In September 2021, Lufthansa announced it would move responsibility for several mid-haul leisure routes to Eurowings Discover. It based three Airbus A320-200s in Frankfurt serving five destinations on the Canary Islands in late 2021.


title: Eurowings Discover

text: In summer 2022, Eurowings Discover established its second operational base at Munich Airport, focused on short-haul operations around the Mediterranean.


title: Eurowings Discover

text: In September 2022, Lufthansa moved some of its own routes to Canada to Eurowings Discover for the upcoming winter season. In late 2022, Eurowings Discover announced to focus its long-haul operations at Frankfurt Airport, terminating their North American and Caribbean services from Munich Airport. Prior to this, the flights were already suspended as the airline took over North American routes at Frankfurt Airport from parent Lufthansa due to staff shortages.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: ), is a Mongolian-born naturalised-Japanese professional sumo wrestler. Wrestling for the Isegahama stable, he entered professional sumo in January 2011 and took the second division "jūryō" championship in his debut as a "sekitori" in September 2013. He took the top "makuuchi" division championship in May 2015, only 25 tournaments after his professional debut, which is the third-fastest behind Asashōryū and Takanohana's 23 tournaments. This earned him promotion to sumo's second-highest rank of "ōzeki".


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji then suffered from knee injuries and other health problems. Surviving "kadoban" (in danger of demotion from the rank of "ōzeki") on three previous occasions, he was finally demoted after the September 2017 tournament. After a long injury layoff he fell to the second-lowest "jonidan" division in March 2019 and staged a successful comeback and returned to the "makuuchi" division the following year, the first wrestler to do so from such a low rank. Terunofuji won his return tournament in the top division in July 2020. He earned his second promotion to "ōzeki" following a third championship win in March 2021, which he immediately followed with another tournament championship in May 2021. Following a runner-up performance in the July 2021 tournament, he was promoted to become the sport's 73rd "yokozuna". He acquired Japanese citizenship the following month, taking the name . Following the retirement of fellow Mongolian Hakuhō in September 2021, Terunofuji became the only active "yokozuna".


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Overall, he has seven top division championships, has been runner-up in seven tournaments, and has nine special prizes. Sumo commentator John Gunning called Terunofuji's comeback "a tale unparalleled in sumo history."


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In childhood, Gan-Erdene was coached in judo by the father of "yokozuna" Hakuhō, but his coach saw in him a predisposition for sumo and helped arrange for him to move to Japan as a student at Tottori Johoku High School to join its well-known sumo program. Future top division wrestler Ichinojō travelled with him and joined the same school. He continued his rivalry with Ichinojō into the professional ranks, remarking in 2015, "What matters is who will make it to the ozeki rank first." As a third year student, Gan-Erdene's team took the championship at a national inter-high school sumo tournament.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Upon graduating, he chose to turn professional and joined Magaki stable. He entered the ring in the same tournament as soon to be well-known Chiyotairyū and Jōkōryū. Upon entering he was given the "shikona" surname of . From his first pro tournament in July 2011 he excelled, posting only three losses in three tournaments and spending only one tournament in each of the lower divisions of "jonokuchi", "jonidan" and "sandanme". In his "sandanme" tournament in November 2011, he had a perfect 7–0 record and participated in a playoff for the championship, which he lost to the aforementioned Jōkōryū, then still known as Sakumayama. From his third division "makushita" debut in January 2012, he had three consecutive 5–2 records before posting two consecutive losing tournaments in July and September 2012, the only two of his career up to that point. He bounced back from this in the following November tournament, garnering a 4–3 record. For the next four tournaments his success continued and he never had more than two losses in any tournament. During the period, his stable closed, and he transferred to Isegahama stable. He had become frustrated with a lack of training opportunities at the small Magaki stable, as with the ill health of his stablemaster and various scandals there were sometimes no other coaches or wrestlers present. At Isegahama by contrast he was able to practice with many higher ranked wrestlers to improve his technique. His 6–1 record at "makushita" 4 in July 2013 was enough to earn him promotion to the salaried ranks of "jūryō" in September 2013.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Upon entering "jūryō" he changed his "shikona" surname to Terunofuji, a combination of two former "yokozuna", Terukuni and Asahifuji (his own stablemaster), and a reflection of the high expectations placed on him. He took the "jūryō" championship in his debut tournament, beating future "maegashira" Kagamiō on the last day to even their records and forcing a playoff bout against Kagamiō, which he also won. An 8–7 record in the following November tournament and a 12–3 record in the January 2014 tournament earned him promotion to the top "makuuchi" division in March 2014.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In his "makuuchi" division debut he had only a 2–7 record on the 9th day. However, from then on he won six straight bouts in six days to pull out a "kachi-koshi" or winning tournament. Then in the following May tournament he started out with an unpromising 4–6 record, but then won 5 straight to finish with a strong showing of 9–6. Two tournaments later in the September 2014 tournament at "maegashira" 1 he was up against top notch competition, including several "san'yaku" or titled wrestlers, and he only managed to eke out a 6–9 record. This was only his third "make-koshi" or losing record in a tournament in his career and his first in the salaried rank. He only fell to "maegashira" 2 though, being helped by bad showings from several other wrestlers. It was in this tournament in November 2014 that he truly began to show his mettle in the top division; after going only 4–6, he beat an "ōzeki" and two "sekiwake" in the last 5 days to pull off an 8–7. In January 2015, he defeated the "ōzeki" Gōeidō and Kisenosato, the "sekiwake" Aoiyama and both active "komusubi" on the way to an 8–7 record. He was awarded the Fighting Spirit Prize, or "kantosho," his first special prize.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: He was promoted to the rank of "sekiwake" for the next tournament. In the March Grand Tournament of 2015, he defeated "yokozuna" Hakuhō (unbeaten in his last 36 matches), and finished runner-up with a 13–2 record, having also defeated both "komusubi" as well as the "ōzeki" Gōeidō and Kotoshōgiku. He received his second Fighting Spirit Prize and was also awarded the prize for Outstanding Performance. After his final contest he said "I'll shoot for double-digit wins at the next tournament and hopefully that will lead to victory. Now I just want to take a long rest". In May Terunofuji was beaten on the opening day of the Natsu "basho" by Sadanoumi, but won his next seven including victories over both "komusubi" and the "ōzeki" Kotoshōgiku. After defeats by Tokushōryū on day nine and Hakuhō on day eleven he recovered to win his next three matches including victories over Kisenosato and the "sekiwake" Myōgiryū to enter the final day in a tie for first place with Hakuhō. In his final match he defeated the Bulgarian "maegashira" Aoiyama by "yori-kiri" or force-out, and then saw Hakuhō lose to Harumafuji. The result was that Terunofuji, in his eighth top-division tournament, was handed his first championship with a 12–3 record and was awarded the Fighting Spirit Prize for the third time. Terunofuji admitted that he had been "almost in tears" at the conclusion of the tournament and said, "When I was 15 years old I watched sumo and wanted to become a sumo wrestler and so came to Japan. It was a dream of mine to win the championship. To actually win it is like a dream." A few days after the tournament, Terunofuji's official promotion to "ōzeki" was announced in a press conference. He was the first to be promoted to ōzeki having previously spent only two tournaments in "san'yaku" since Yoshibayama 64 years earlier. As Yoshibayama's promotion came before the six-tournaments per year system, Terunofuji was the first to be promoted after only four months in "san'yaku".


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Following Terunofuji's first top division "yūshō", "Japan Times" columnist Mark Buckton suggested that he had the potential to be promoted one day to the highest rank of "yokozuna".


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: On his first appearance at his new rank Terunofuji won nine of his first ten matches to reach a tie for the lead, but losses to Hakuhō, Kakuryū and Kotoshōgiku saw him end the tournament with an 11–4 record. In September he won his first eleven matches to establish a clear lead over the opposition, but then lost to Tochiōzan and Kisenosato, sustaining a knee injury in the latter match. Another loss to Gōeidō saw him enter the final day with eleven wins, one behind the "yokozuna" Kakuryū. In the final scheduled match on day 15 Terunofuji defeated Kakuryū to level their scores but lost the ensuing play-off. Terunofuji's knee injury continued to trouble him in November but he posted nine wins including victories over the "yokozuna" Kakuryū and Hakuhō.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: The year 2016 was a hard one for Terunofuji, with the lack of strength and flexibility in his knees affecting his performances. He was "kadoban", or danger of relegation from "ōzeki" three times, but was able to hold on to his rank each time by getting a winning record in the following tournament. In January he won three of his first five bouts before withdrawing from the tournament with a broken right collar bone and damaged meniscus in his left knee, after a bout with Kyokushūhō. This was the first withdrawal of his career. He underwent arthroscopic surgery on his left knee shortly afterwards. Despite his injury problems he announced that he would contest the next tournament in March, where he was "kadoban," or in danger of demotion from "ōzeki" rank. In March, Terunofuji still seemed well below his best but maintained his rank with eight wins. In May, however, his form slumped as he lost his last thirteen matches to end with a career-worst record of 2–13. He just managed to preserve his rank on the final day of the following Nagoya tournament by defeating Kaisei for an 8–7 record, but was "kadoban" yet again after recording only four wins in September. In November 2016 he was "kadoban" and under danger of demotion if he failed to secure at least eight wins in the tournament. Things didn't start off on the right foot as he lost his first two matches, however things took a turn as he proceeded to win the next seven in a row including a win over fellow "ōzeki" Kotoshōgiku. Terunofuji then had two losses against Kakuryū and Gōeidō, but was able to get his winning record on day 12 against Hakuhō which erased his "kadoban" status and secured his rank. Terunofuji finished out the year with three losses and ended the tournament with an 8–7 record.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In the January 2017 tournament Terunofuji managed only four wins, making him "kadoban" for the fourth time. The Osaka tournament in March saw a dramatic return to form as he won his first five matches before losing to Takayasu, and then won his next seven to take a share of the lead with a win over Kakuryū on Day 13. On Day 14 he became the sole leader after he defeated Kotoshōgiku and the injured Kisenosato lost to Kakuryū, but he was booed by the crowd for sidestepping his opponent at the initial charge. He missed out on his second championship on the final day as he was defeated twice by Kisenosato, once in their regulation match and again in the resulting playoff. The Japan Sumo Association was questioned by the government after the tournament when media reports suggested that Terunofuji was subjected to hate speech taunts from the crowd after his controversial win over Kotoshōgiku, with the expression "Go back to Mongolia" reportedly used.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji underwent endoscopic surgery on his left knee after the May 2017 tournament, but did not recover as well as expected. He entered the Nagoya tournament in July but withdrew after four losses in the first five days, citing a meniscal injury to the knee. The September tournament saw a repeat of Nagoya, with Terunofuji winning only one of his first five matches before he was forced to withdraw because of the knee injury, which he aggravated in a loss to Shōhōzan on Day 5. Having failed to record a winning score in two consecutive tournaments he lost his "ōzeki" status after 14 tournaments at the rank.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji could have made an immediate return to "ōzeki" with at least ten wins in the November 2017 tournament, but he withdrew on Day 5 after losing his first four matches, citing a meniscus tear in his left knee. He withdrew from the January 2018 tournament on Day 3 after losing his first two bouts, due to a viscera disorder, and was demoted to "jūryō" as a result. He is the fourth former "ōzeki" to fall to "jūryō" and the first since Baruto in 2013. In March 2018 he completed a tournament for the first time since May of the previous year but could only score six wins against nine losses from "jūryō" 5. He withdrew from the May 2018 tournament on Day 4, but returned from Day 11 in an attempt to stave off demotion to "makushita." His stablemaster reported that in addition to diabetes and knee problems he was also suffering from kidney stones. However he failed to win any matches on his return and was demoted to "makushita". He was the first "ōzeki" and first top division tournament winner to fall to that division. He had surgery on both knees on 25 June and withdrew from the July 2018 tournament, with his stablemaster indicating he wanted Terunofuji to have his knees healed properly before competing again. He was also absent for the next three tournaments, which caused him to fall to the second-lowest "jonidan" division. He returned to competition in March 2019 and won all seven of his matches, although he lost a playoff for the "jonidan" championship to fellow Mongolian Roga. This was his first appearance since May 2018, and his first winning record since May 2017. In his next three tournaments he lost just one bout in each, progressing to "makushita" 10 by November 2019. In the Kyushu tournament he won the makushita championship with a perfect 7–0 record, ensuring his return to the "sekitori" ranks.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In his first tournament as a "sekitori" since May 2018, Terunofuji won his second consecutive "yūshō" by clinching the "jūryō" championship on Day 13 of the January tournament with 13 straight wins. He lost his final two matches to Nishikigi and Daiamami, ending any outside hopes of immediate promotion back to "makuuchi", and was ranked at "jūryō" 3 for the March 2020 tournament.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In the March tournament, Terunofuji finished with a 10–5 record and earned promotion back to "makuuchi", after 14 tournaments outside the top division. He is the first top division wrestler to fall to "jonidan" and successfully return to "makuuchi". After the May "basho" was cancelled due to COVID-19, Terunofuji continued his comeback in the July tournament by winning his second top-division "yūshō" with a 13–2 record. He secured the championship by defeating "sekiwake" Mitakeumi on the final day and also won the Technique and Outstanding Performance prizes as well. The 30 tournaments between this victory and his previous "yūshō" in May 2015 is the second longest gap between top division championships after Kotonishiki's 43. Speaking to reporters online following his victory, Terunofuji thanked his stablemaster, who convinced him to keep working on healing himself when Terunofuji had asked for permission to retire. In the September 2020 tournament from "maegashira" 1 Terunofuji secured a winning record with eight wins, before withdrawing on Day 13 with a left knee injury. He returned to the "san'yaku" ranks for the first time in three years at the November 2020 tournament. This was the first time he had been ranked as a "komusubi."


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji continued to perform well at the November 2020 "basho", going into the final day with a 12–2 record. This score put him one win behind "ōzeki" Takakeishō in the "yūshō" race. Terunofuji faced Takakeishō on the final day, defeating him and bringing their scores level to force a "yūshō" playoff. However, Takakeishō won the playoff and claimed the championship. For his efforts, Terunofuji was awarded the "ginō-shō" or technique prize at the tournament's conclusion. He was the runner-up again in January 2021 at the "sekiwake" rank, when he defeated both the active "ōzeki" and secured another "ginō-shō".


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji acknowledged before the March 2021 tournament that he would need a three "basho" total of 33 wins to be considered for "ōzeki" promotion and that he would "fight hard." His own stablemaster, Isegahama (former "yokozuna" Asahifuji), is the head of the refereeing department and in charge of drawing up the rankings. With his fellow Mongolians Hakuhō and Kakuryū withdrawn due to injury, Terunofuji won his third career "yūshō" and earned his third "shukun-shō", finishing with a 12–3 record – more than the 10 wins needed for an expected promotion to "ōzeki" once again. He is the first wrestler to win three top division championships from a rank below "ōzeki". Terunofuji later told reporters that barely qualifying for promotion to the sport's second-highest rank was not enough, as he felt that his stablemaster's reputation was on the line. The Sumo Association unanimously approved his promotion on 31 March. He accepted "with great humility" when informed by JSA representatives at Isegahama stable. He later reiterated his gratitude to his stablemaster, adding that he would devote himself to training and aim higher.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In May 2021 he won his first ten bouts, leading the rest of the field by two victories, but suffered a "hansoku" or loss by disqualification on Day 11 when he was determined by the ringside judges to have pulled Myōgiryū's topknot. He suffered another defeat to Endō on Day 14, but remained the leader. He won his fourth championship after defeating fellow "ōzeki" Takakeishō in a playoff, having lost to him in their regulation match. He became the first person since the "kadoban" system was introduced in July 1969 to win the Emperor's Cup immediately after returning to the "ōzeki" rank.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In the July 2021 tournament, Terunofuji was in contention for the Emperor's Cup with a perfect record after 14 days before losing in the final match to fellow Mongolian-born "yokozuna" Hakuhō, who won the championship with a perfect 15–0 record. This was their first meeting in four years, and only the sixth time in sumo history that two wrestlers had fought on the final day with undefeated records. Despite missing out on the championship, Terunofuji's performance over the last three tournaments — 38 victories, with a top division championship at the "sekiwake" rank followed by a championship and a runner-up performance at the "ōzeki" rank — was enough for the Sumo Association to call for an extraordinary meeting to discuss Terunofuji's promotion to become the sport's 73rd "yokozuna", the first "yokozuna" of the Reiwa Era. This completed Terunofuji's historic comeback after dropping from the second-highest "ōzeki" rank to the second-lowest "jonidan" division. He is only the second rikishi in history who was demoted from the rank of "ōzeki" but still managed the promotion to "yokozuna", the only other one being Mienoumi in 1979, and is also only the fourth rikishi who got promoted to "yokozuna" after only two tournaments after promotion to "ōzeki", after Tochigiyama in 1918, Futabayama in 1937, and Terukuni in 1942. At 29 years and 7 months, he is also the sixth oldest rikishi to be promoted to "yokozuna".


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: The Yokozuna Deliberation Council recommended Terunofuji's promotion on 19 July, and the Sumo Association formally approved the promotion on 21 July. In his acceptance speech, Terunofuji said he would hold on to his "unshakeable spirit and aim to foster greater dignity and power as a "yokozuna"." Later, he told reporters that he wanted to have a more determined mindset in sumo, adding that he wanted to understand what it means to be a "yokozuna" and be a role model to others.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji adopted the Shiranui style used by his stablemaster Isegahama and took part in his first "dohyō-iri" (ring-entering ceremony) as a "yokozuna" on 24 August at Meiji Shrine in Tokyo. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the ceremony was delayed by one month after his promotion. The ceremony was closed to the public, but the Sumo Association streamed the event on YouTube. Stablemates Terutsuyoshi and Takarafuji served as the "tsuyuharai" (dew sweeper) and "tachimochi" (sword bearer), respectively, and Terunofuji borrowed the tachi used for the ceremony to his stable master. In preparation for his first tournament as "Yokozuna", Terunofuji received a tachi from the sumo club supporters' association of Johoku High School (his former school). According to the supporter's association, the tachi was made in 1576 and is about 1 meter long.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji won his first sumo tournament as a "yokozuna" in September 2021 with a 13–2 record. Hakuho's retirement was formalized soon after the tournament ended, leaving Terunofuji as sumo's only "yokozuna". Terunofuji's sixth career "yūshō" in "makuuchi" was assured on Day 14 of the November 2021 tournament after he defeated Abi, who had been the only other wrestler in contention for the Emperor's Cup at that time. He would end up defeating Takakeishō on the final day for his first perfect record in "makuuchi". Terunofuji was humble during his public interview, appreciating the support of fans in Kyushu who did not see last year's November "basho" because of COVID-19 and saying that he was "not such a talented wrestler capable of doing many things." Terunofuji became the first sumo wrestler to win his first two tournaments at the "yokozuna" rank since Taihō, who accomplished the feat in January 1962. He was also the first wrestler to win four tournaments in a year since Hakuhō in 2014.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In January 2022 Terunofuji's performance was somewhat hampered by knee injuries and he lost to Mitakeumi in a title-decider on the final day to finish on 11–4, two wins off the pace. In February 2022 the Sumo Association announced that, along with a number of other high-ranking wrestlers, he had tested positive for COVID-19. He missed ten days of training as a result.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji withdrew on Day 6 of the March 2022 "basho" in Osaka citing issues with his right heel and left knee, both of which he had injured in the past. The issues would require about one month of treatment, according to a medical certificate submitted to the Sumo Association. Terunofuji's withdrawal came after he was defeated by Daieishō and, for the second straight tournament, Tamawashi. It was his first "kyūjō" since his promotion to sumo's highest rank.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: At the May 2022 Natsu Basho in Tokyo, Terunofuji overcame early losses to clinch the tournament with a 12–3 record. He avoided what would have been a four-way playoff with Daieishō, Takanoshō and Sadanoumi by beating Mitakeumi on the final day. In an online press conference the following day, he spoke of his relief at his victory and paid tribute to his former Isegahama stablemate Aminishiki ahead of his retirement ceremony, who Terunofuji said had given him advice on how to deal with his knee injuries.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In July Terunofuji was in contention for the championship on the final day but his defeat to Takakeishō meant he finished on 11–4, one win behind "maegashira" Ichinojō who took the title with a 12–3 record. In the September tournament he pulled out on Day 10, having already suffered four losses, due to injuries to both knees. This was the 13th withdrawal of his career, and his second since becoming .


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In September 2022, Terunofuji decided to withdraw from the remainder of the tournament on Day 10, having given away four "kinboshi" to fall to a 5–4 record. In a telephone interview, his stable master Isegahama-"oyakata" said Terunofuji had been diagnosed with osteoarthritis in both knees and bone contusion in the right knee, which was "completely out of alignment". Isegahama said, "He needs to heal properly, not just rest. In some cases, surgery will be necessary. I think the inflammation will stop in a few days, but after that, I have to think carefully about what to do." Terunofuji had surgery on both knees on October 18, with his stablemaster indicating he would not return to competition until fully healed. On 11 November he formally withdrew from the November tournament in Fukuoka.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji is a "yotsu-sumo" wrestler who favours grappling techniques as opposed to pushing and thrusting ("oshi-sumo"). His preferred grip on his opponent's "mawashi" or belt is "migi-yotsu", a left hand outside, right hand inside position. His favourite winning "kimarite" or technique is a straightforward "yori-kiri", or force out, which has accounted for over 40 percent of his career victories. Prior to his demotion from the top division, he often relied on his physical strength to lift opponents with both arms and carry them out of the "dohyō", a style of wrestling which was criticized for increasing the burden on his knees.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: Terunofuji was married in February 2018 to a Mongolian exchange student, although he did not announce it until January 2021. They have known each other since before his first "ōzeki" promotion. Their wedding reception took place on 11 February 2021 at the Tomioka Hachiman Shrine in Tokyo's Kōtō ward. He thanked his wife for her support during his long injury layoff, as during this period he gave up drinking and she followed nutritional advice from his doctor in preparing his meals.


title: Terunofuji Haruo

text: In March 2021 Terunofuji revealed that he was in the process of acquiring Japanese citizenship, which would enable him to stay in sumo after retirement as an elder of the Japan Sumo Association. In August 2021, the Sumo Association announced that Terunofuji was officially a Japanese citizen. Terunofuji explained that he had made the decision to seek Japanese citizenship in 2019 following his fall to the second-lowest "jonidan" division, after consultation with his family, stablemaster and colleagues. His legal name is Seizan Suginomori, created by taking the surname and "sei" part of the forename from his stablemaster's real name of Seiya Suginomori.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Theoren Wallace "Theo" Fleury (born June 29, 1968) is a Canadian former professional ice hockey player, author, and motivational speaker. Fleury played for the Calgary Flames, Colorado Avalanche, New York Rangers, and Chicago Blackhawks of the National Hockey League (NHL), Tappara of Finland's SM-liiga, and the Belfast Giants of the UK's Elite Ice Hockey League. He was drafted by the Flames in the 8th round, 166th overall, at the 1987 NHL Entry Draft, and played over 1,000 games in the NHL between 1989 and 2003.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: One of the smallest players of his generation, Fleury played a physical style that often led to altercations. As a junior, he was at the centre of the infamous Punch-up in Piestany, a brawl that resulted in the disqualification of both Canada and the Soviet Union from the 1987 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. Once considered unlikely to play in the NHL due to his small size, Fleury scored over 1,000 points in his career, placing him 61st in career NHL scoring and won the Stanley Cup in 1989 with the Flames. During his career Fleury recorded 90+ points four times, and 100+ points twice. He twice represented Canada at the Winter Olympics, winning a gold medal in 2002. Throughout his career, he battled drug and alcohol addictions that ultimately forced him out of the NHL in 2003. He played one season in the British Elite Ice Hockey League in 2005–06, and made two attempts to win the Allan Cup. After an unsuccessful NHL comeback attempt with the Flames, he retired in 2009.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Outside of hockey, Fleury overcame his addictions, operated a concrete business in Calgary with his family, and filmed a pilot for a reality television show about it. He marketed his own brand of clothing, which led him to play two professional baseball games for the Calgary Vipers of the Golden Baseball League. In 1995, he was diagnosed with Crohn's disease, and his annual charity golf tournament has helped raise more than $1 million for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Fleury co-wrote "Playing with Fire", a best-selling autobiography released in October 2009, in which he revealed that he had been sexually abused by former coach Graham James. Fleury filed a criminal complaint against James, who subsequently pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault. Fleury has since become an advocate for sexual abuse victims and developed a career as a public speaker. He was a recipient of the Indspire Award in the sports category in 2013. Additionally, Theoren hosts the "Theo Fleury 14 Hockey Camp" which helps to teach, inspire and educate young hockey players ages 6 to 16. Moreover, Fleury travelled to Vancouver in 2013 where he assisted and co-hosted the 19th Annual Aboriginal Achievement Awards.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Fleury was born on June 29, 1968, in Oxbow, Saskatchewan, the first of Wally and Donna Fleury's three sons. Wally was a hockey player whose dreams of a professional career ended when he broke his leg playing baseball in the summer of 1963; the injury helped fuel a drinking problem. Donna was a quiet, religious woman who battled drug addiction for many years. Fleury is of Métis heritage, as his grandmother Mary was Cree. Fleury was subject to racism for being of the Metis descent throughout his playing career. The Fleurys lived in Williams Lake, British Columbia, for four years, a period that saw Theo's brother Ted born in 1970, before settling in Russell, Manitoba, by 1973, the year his youngest brother Travis was born. Wally worked as a truck driver and maintenance worker at the arena in Russell. Fleury and his family shared a passion for music. One of his fondest memories when he was a child was listening to his grandfather play the fiddle. Fleury's father was a talented man who could play a variety of instruments, such as the piano and guitar. This passion for music brought happiness and joy to Theoren and his family as it was a part of their Metis heritage growing up.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Always one of the smallest children in his class and without stable supervision at home, Fleury adopted an aggressive posture and later described himself as a bully. He turned to hockey as an outlet when he borrowed an old pair of skates and a broken stick to play his first game at the age of five. From that point on, he played hockey at every opportunity, often accompanying his father to the arena in Russell in the pre-dawn hours. He was described by his teachers as a determined youth, who would repeat any activity he failed at until he got it right.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Although his mother was a Jehovah's Witness, Fleury was raised as a Roman Catholic. He attended mass from age 6 to 12, serving as an altar boy until the church's priest died of a heart attack, depriving Fleury of one of his early positive influences. Always lacking money and stable home life, Fleury received support from the hockey community, in particular the Peltz family in Russell, who ensured that he and his brothers were fed and bought them new clothes when required. In January 1982, Fleury's dreams of playing in the NHL nearly ended at the age of 13 when, during a game, he suffered a deep cut under his arm that severed his brachial artery. He missed nearly a year of contact hockey as a result. Five months after the incident, the community raised money to send him to the Andy Murray Hockey School in Brandon, Manitoba. It was there that Fleury met Graham James, who was working as a scout for the Winnipeg Warriors of the Western Hockey League (WHL). James told Fleury that he had the skill to play in the NHL despite his size, and promised to recruit him to play junior hockey for the Warriors when he was old enough.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Fleury began his junior career in 1983–84 as a 15-year-old with the St. James Canadians of the Manitoba Junior Hockey League, scoring 33 goals and 64 points in 22 games, an incredible pace of nearly three points per game. In 1984–85 he moved to the Moose Jaw Warriors, who had just relocated from Winnipeg, scoring 29 goals and 75 points in 71 games as a 16-year-old. He improved his totals in each of his four years in the WHL, culminating with a 68-goal, 92-assist season in 1987–88. Fleury's 160 points tied him for the league lead with Joe Sakic, and the two players shared the Bob Clarke Trophy as the WHL's top scorers. Fleury's 92 assists and 160 points remain team records; he also holds the Warriors' career records for goals (201), assists (271) and points (472). , he remains 10th all-time in WHL scoring.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Always one of the smallest players in the game, Fleury learned early that he had to play an unpredictable style of game to survive against players much larger than he was. He found that the best way to protect himself was to intimidate his opponents by playing a feisty, physical game, which he said led to many retaliatory penalties and several arguments with his coaches. He recorded 235 minutes in penalties in his final year of junior, nearly 100 more than any of the other top 10 WHL scorers. Fleury retained this style of play throughout his hockey career, routinely surprising opponents who felt their size was an advantage.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Fleury twice represented Canada at the World Junior Hockey Championships. He first joined the team for the 1987 tournament in Piešťany, Czechoslovakia. The tournament is best remembered for the "Punch-up in Piestany" on January 4, 1987, an infamous bench-clearing brawl between the Canadians and the Soviet Union. Fleury scored the first goal of the game and, as part of his celebration, used his stick to mimic firing a machine gun at the Soviet bench, a move that was criticized by Canadian officials. The brawl began early in the second period with Canada leading 4–2, when Pavel Kostichkin slashed Fleury, leading to a fight between the two. It quickly escalated into a line brawl involving all skaters on the ice, after which the Soviet players left their bench, followed closely by the Canadians. Both teams were disqualified from the tournament, costing Fleury and the Canadians a medal – potentially the gold.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: The International Ice Hockey Federation suspended all players involved in the brawl from participating in international tournaments for 18 months, though the bans were later reduced to 6 months on appeal. This reduction allowed Fleury to participate in the 1988 tournament in Moscow. He was named captain, finished second in team scoring with eight points in seven games, and was named a tournament all-star as Canada won the gold medal.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Although he scored 129 points for the Warriors in 1986–87, Fleury's small stature led many teams to doubt that he could play in the NHL. The Calgary Flames drafted him in the 8th round, 166th overall, of the 1987 NHL Entry Draft. Upon completing his junior season in 1988, Fleury signed his first professional contract, worth C$415,000, and joined the Flames' International Hockey League (IHL) affiliate, the Salt Lake Golden Eagles. He scored seven points in two regular season games, then 16 more in eight playoff games as the Eagles won the Turner Cup championship.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Fleury arrived at the Flames' 1988 training camp overweight, and was assigned back to Salt Lake to begin the 1988–89 season. He averaged nearly two points per game, recording 37 goals and 37 assists to lead the IHL in scoring after 40 games. Mired in a slump, the Flames recalled Fleury on January 1, 1989, in the hope he could help their offence. He played his first NHL game against the Quebec Nordiques two nights later and recorded his first points – three assists – on January 5 against the Los Angeles Kings. He scored his first two NHL goals in a 7–2 victory over the Edmonton Oilers on January 7. Fleury continued to score, and finished with 34 points in 36 games in his NHL rookie season. He added 11 points in the playoffs, helping the Flames to the first Stanley Cup championship in franchise history.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: After improving to 33 goals in his first full season, Fleury broke out in 1990–91, scoring 51 goals and 104 points to lead the Flames offensively. He played in the 1991 All-Star Game, scoring a goal in an 11–5 victory by the Campbell Conference over the Wales Conference. Towards the end of the season, Fleury set a league record by scoring three shorthanded goals in one game against the St. Louis Blues. He shared the NHL Plus-Minus Award with Marty McSorley, whom he tied for the league lead with +48. Fleury scored only two goals in the 1991 Stanley Cup Playoffs, but after his overtime winner in game six against the Oilers he famously slid the entire length of the ice in jubilation before crashing into the boards as his teammates attempted to catch up to him. CBC "Hockey Night in Canada" play-by-play announcer Chris Cuthbert called Fleury's goal in a dramatic fashion: Unfortunately, the Flames were defeated in game seven, which ended their season.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Fleury fell back to 33 goals in 1991–92 as the Flames missed the playoffs. That season, he made his second All-Star Game appearance, recording a goal for the Campbell Conference. Fleury finished with over 100 points for the second time in his career in 1992–93 to lead the team in scoring, and set a franchise record by going +9 in a 13–1 victory over the San Jose Sharks on February 10, 1993, in which he scored six points.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: The 1994–95 NHL lockout reduced the season to 48 games from 84. During the lockout, Fleury played for Tappara in Finland's top league, the SM-liiga. He recorded 17 points in ten games before the NHL's labour dispute was resolved, bringing him back to Calgary. Late in the season, Fleury recorded two goals and an assist against the Oilers on March 31, 1995, to surpass 500 career points.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: Lacking a contract prior to the 1995–96 season, Fleury staged a brief hold-out during training camp before signing a five-year, $12 million deal with the Flames. He agreed to take less money than he could have received on the open market out of loyalty to the franchise that had given him his NHL opportunity. He missed much of the preseason with a stomach ailment, but joined the team for the season opener. Although he felt like somebody was "stabbing a knife in [his] gut every five minutes", Fleury had played every game for the Flames when he revealed in December 1995 that he had been diagnosed with Crohn's disease and doctors had finally found the correct medication to control it. Despite the ailment, Fleury led the team in goals, assists, and points, and played in his third All-Star Game, serving as Calgary's only representative.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: When Joe Nieuwendyk refused to report to the Flames prior to the 1995–96 season, they named Fleury interim captain. The title was made permanent when Nieuwendyk was traded in December. Fleury was reluctant to assume the captaincy, but did so out of loyalty to the team and because there was nobody else capable of taking on the role. He relinquished it two seasons later after deciding that it was harming his play and affecting his relationship with his teammates and coach Pierre Pagé.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: The Flames struggled in 1996–97, finishing last in the Pacific Division and missing the playoffs for only the second time since their arrival in Calgary in 1980. Fleury again led the team in scoring, but his 29 goals were the fewest he had scored in a full season in the NHL. He was the Flames' lone representative at the 1997 All-Star Game. He scored only 27 goals in 1997–98, but increased his point total from 67 to 78 while also leading the team with 197 penalties in minutes. On November 29, 1997, Fleury scored his 315th career goal, breaking Nieuwendyk's franchise record. The same day, he was named to Team Canada for the 1998 Winter Olympics. Fleury participated in his fifth All-Star Game that season, but the Flames again missed the playoffs.


title: Theoren Fleury

text: On February 19, 1999, he surpassed Al MacInnis as the franchise scoring leader with his 823rd career point. He held the record for 10 years until surpassed by Jarome Iginla in 2009. The Flames, who had been struggling financially and were unable to sign Fleury to a new contract, chose to trade him less than two weeks after he broke the record rather than risk losing him to free agency. He was dealt to the Colorado Avalanche on February 28 for René Corbet, Wade Belak, and Robyn Regehr. Although it was expected, the trade nonetheless stunned fans in Calgary. His popularity was such that during a game in 1999, after Fleury was sent off the ice to change a bloody jersey, a fan threw his own souvenir jersey over the boards so that Fleury would not miss a shift. He put the jersey on before realizing it was autographed and handed it back.