Moved Exam up from next Thursday to next Tuesday September18
Handed back Student Briefs on Snyder v. Phelps
Handed back Student Briefs on Snyder v. Phelps
She was pleased overall with our work. Keep it up!
She noted that we need to focus on the Decision: "8-1 with a decent from Justice Yada"
Don't 'editorialize' a brief. Stick to the case itself.
=====================
She noted that we need to focus on the Decision: "8-1 with a decent from Justice Yada"
Don't 'editorialize' a brief. Stick to the case itself.
=====================
CHAPTER 3 (con't)
PRIOR RESTRAINT (compelling Gov't interest & narrowly tailored)
1. Injunctions
US v Progressive - Progressive Magazine - how to make a hydrogen bomb. Govt. claimed "immediate, direct, irreparable harm to the interests of the US."
Lower ct. approved injunction. . .no appellate court heard
2. Contract
1980 - Snepp v. US - CIA agent sued by CIA for breach of contract for book. Snepp left the CIA and requested the contract be voided. .court refused. He was stuck for life with a non-disclosure contract.
3. Military Security
Press coverage of military operations submitted for security review.
4. Licensing
Public forum (Licensing are different from permits..,this falls under "Time, Place, and Manner")
Motion Pictures
Broadcasting
5. Taxes:
Can't tax newspapers. . .period.
CAN tax broadcast and satellite media
PUNISHMENT AFTER PUBLICATION:
Cannot punish press for using material gathered by illegal means
- as long as press not involved in the illegal activity.
+ "she can know that it was stolen, but she can still publish the info"
CONTENT NEUTRALITY
"if it applies to one, it applies to all"
"Muslims can't picket on Sundays" Not Content Neutral
"You can't picket on Sunday without a permit from noon to five"
Time, Place and Manner
1. Is policy content neutral
A. Is there a substantial, compelling govt. interest
B. does the policy advance that interest
C. is the policy narrowly tailored to address only the govt. interest
2. Is there an alternative channel for the expression.
==== FINISHED CHAPTER 3 , TEST NEXT TUESDAY SEPT 18 ====
Let's take on a case.
Censorship
MBoro Middle School has put filters on all their computers so no student can access information that might be deemed pornographic.
Plaintiff: Andrew - 16 year old guy trying to find Scholarships for Gays
T-P-M (time place manner)
Why can't they censor this.
Determine both sides..
Content Neutral?
Strict Scrutiny
Intentionally blocked? or IT error in keywords?
Intentionally blocked < content neutral, discrimination
IT error < --- then how did you search "anti-gay"
LGBT
==== BREIF ====
FACTS:
- 16 year old cannot search scholarships from Gay organizations on school computers
- Rutherford School computers have a block attempting to stop students from accessing sites with pornographic content
ISSUES:
- Discriminatory internet parameters
- Student was discriminated by not having access to gay scholarships
- Equality in all scholarship sites
CONST BACKING:
ANTICIPATE RESULTS:
-
- Set an gay friendly filtered, but supervised computer for access to such cites.
- Pay us scholarship hinderance costs
"Good Start, we've got the lead"
Turns out that it WAS an IT error and resolved before it went to court.
Un-purposeful or vindictive
** Read Ch 3 **
No comments:
Post a Comment