Discussed a case VP Dick Channey being approached by Howard who poked him and asked "How many babies did you kill today?" talking about the war. Then the Secret service rushed in and removed Howard screaming 1st Amendment rights.
THE MOST PROTECT SPEECH IS POLITICAL SPEECH << most likely on the test
It was an 8-0 case, they all affirmed the decision
The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator. So He's Done.
(END OF CHAPTER 2) :
Smith Act of 1940 - Communists were deemed "sufficient evil" for Congress to control.
1945 - Dennis v US - first Communists arrested. Advocated violent overthrow of gov.
1957 - Yates v US - Supreme Court- advocating overthrow of a government not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
1969 - Brandenburg v Ohio - Last sedition case heard by the Supreme Court. Mustnot only advocate and provide means, but also rev up the crowd to revolt.
Resulted in "Brandenburg" test: (Standards would likely still be used today.) 1969
1. Intent to incite violence?
Ex: If you verbally attack a group of gays it is not an Incitement to Violence UNTIL you give a call to action "and we need to grab our guns and go!"
2. Time between speech and action must be very close.
"Lets go get 'em..uh next Saturday.." it has to be NOW, really close.
3. The conduct itself must be a lawless action. (Action must be illegal)
Grabbing them by the hair off the knoll.
4. Is the action substantially likely to occur based on the speech.
Is it really likely or are you just playing with the crowds "Yeah..I'll go"
[ Discussion on Cyber-bulling and Free Speech ]
No National Law.. that she knows of..
"Narrowly Tailored" .. strict scrutiny -- they can't just arbitrarily say you can't tweet for 30 min after a game. There has to be a narrowly tailored reason that they prohibit the tweeting.
1971 -
You could not wear the flag..only in daylight on a flagpole.
His flag denim shirt even said "Fuck the Draft" He was arrested.
It was ruled as "political commentary" and therefore protected.
==== SKIPPED TODAY ====
CONTENT REGULATION
Government CAN restrict in some cases. .
strict scrutiny from judges.
Government must show:
1. justified by a compelling government interest
2. narrowly drawn to impose the minimum restrictions on freedom of expression.
1984 – Texas v. Johnson. Johnson burned a flag in protest of government policies.
Supreme Court determined 1. no compelling government interest.
2. Overbroad to restrict everyone
Can't pass regulations that don't apply equally.
^^^=== SKIPPED TODAY === ^^^
Video games : Parents tried to use Brandenburg to argue that that was responsible.
Bottom line: proof that games increase violence
Who do we punish? Developers? Parents? Retailers? Schools? The Child?
Incited to violence, Judice Price "Do It" "caused" the kids to shoot themselves (but did't win)
Strict Scrutiny requires compelling gov. interest
and law narrowly drawn
Content neutral
laws that apply to all without regard to content
Test for Vagueness and Overbredth (can't put ANY, EVER) too vagueness
CHAPTER 3
Methods of Control:
Two ways to protect the public from harmful speech
1. prior restraint - government censorship
2. Punishment - punishing after the publication
PRIOR RESTRAINT
1. Injunctions
Prohibits public from judging worth of publications
"If you publish that, you will be fined and thrown it jail"
1931 - Near v. Minnesota
Court struck down law permitting injunction to stop "malicious, scandalous or defamatory publications." Publisher should be forced to show that they were worthy of print.
New York Times v. US - Pentagon Papers case.
Nine opinions written by six concurring and three dissenting justices. Severely weakens strength of decision.
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment