Media 401 Ch 4 Forums of Freedom

Rosenberger v. Virginia 1995.

University of Virginia restricted the use of student activity funds from any publications that involved beliefs in a deity, blocking funding for Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective. This was found to be a 1st Amendment violation because student funds are a limited public forum that must be distributed as content-neutral.

Inflicting harm example: Columbia Daily Tribune published the name and address of a woman who had escaped an attacker. He then stalked her. Ms. Hyde sued the Tribune,

but failed to prove negligence on their part and lost.

Grayned v, City of Rockford 1972.

Forum case. African-American students in Rockford rallied outside classrooms loud enough to be heard in classrooms, with posters that were visible from school. Demonstrating for equal rights. Arrested for picketing and noise. S.C. decided the rally was not a compatible use for school space during classes.

Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier 1988.

Forum case. Controversial articles for school newspaper were removed by the principal (divorce and teen pregnancy). S.C. ruled that a school-owned newspaper is not a public forum, educational project. Can be censored.

Kowalski v. Berkley Schools 2011.

Forum case. Group of students were cyberbullying a girl on a webpage titled S.A.S.H. (Students Against Sluts Herpes). Victim was distraught and her education was disrupted. Allowed to censor.

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of the Confederate Veterans.

Forum case. Group wanted to make a specialty license plate with the confederate flag on it, but Texas did not want to allow it. S.C. said license plates are govt property and can be censored to reflect govt views.

Morse v. Frederick 2007.

Forum case. High school student displayed "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner at a school activity. Ruled that the principal can punish indecent speech.

Emmett v. Kent School Dist.

Forum case. Student created aggressive website where students could vote for the student or teacher they would most like to see die. He was suspended, but the court ruled in the student's favor because his personal computer was outside of the school's control.

Laylock v. Hermitage Sch Dist.

Forum case. Student made a fake principal profile on Myspace that included absurd information about drug use, drinking, and sex. Website was allowed. Non threatening expression inside the student's home was protected speech.

Fraser v. Bethel School Dist. 1986.

Forum case. Student was giving a support speech at an assembly for another student running for student office. He gave an explicit speech full of double entendres like "firm in the pants" and "he will climax for you" so he was suspended. S.C. agreed that he could be punished. The Tinker Rule doesn't protect indecent and disruptive behavior.

Hague v. CIO 1939.

Forum case. The Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) was sharing news of the rights granted by the National Labor Relations Act. Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague didn't like this activity and put all the union reps on boats back to New York City. First S.C. ruling that public streets, parks and sidewalks are traditional public forums and can't be censored.

Content-Based Restrictions

Laws that restrict certain types of speech. Subject to strict scrutiny.

Content-Neutral Restrictions

Legal limits that do not single out certain viewpoints but apply equally to all speech. Subject to a lesser degree of scrutiny. Time, place, and manner rules are considered to be content-neutral and can be challenged under intermediate scrutiny tests.

Intermediate Scrutiny

Midlevel test that courts apply when reviewing a law that serves an important state interest in a way that is substantially related to the interest. (noise ordinance, parks closed at night for safety)

Traditional Public Forum

Refers to public property that is open for expression and assembly, such as sterees, sidewalks, and parks.

(Hosty v. Carter) Newspaper at Governors State University in Illinois issued front-page criticism of teachers and administrators. The Dean withheld the issues because they wouldn't print a retraction.

Ruled that even at the college level, school-sponsored speech is allowed to be censored by the school.

Fighting words

Speech that by its very utterance inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Tinker Test

Test. allows students freedom of expression on school grounds unless it poses a material, substantial disruption to the educational process that is reasonably foreseeable.

2003 two cases in Virginia went to the S.C. Virginia has a law against cross burning because it is a violent and intimidating act.

The S.C. upheld their law as constitutional because burning crosses represents an attempt to intimidate and is a true threat.

Inflicting harm example: The publishing of a book about how to be a hit man and commit murder resulted in the death of a quadripelegic boy, his mother, and nurse.

The courts ruled the murders were foreseeable and the book was not constitutionally protected.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.

The group was funded by a university, but they were refusing membership to students they deemed immoral. University is allowed to not fund them because they are not open to all students. The group is improperly censoring a limited public forum and must have neutral viewpoint.

Strict Scrutiny

The highest standard of scrutiny courts can apply when reviewing laws. It requires that the law 1) serve a compelling government interest, 2) be narrowly tailored to achieving the goal, and 3) use the least restrictive means to do so.

Forum example: Student created an off-campus website inviting visitors to donate $20 toward hiring a hitman. Site featured a teacher's decapitated head dripping with blood.

The punishment was upheld because the website was aimed at school personnel and was accessed at school by the perpetrator.

Open forum example: Two competing teacher unions wanted access to teachers' mailboxes, but only the "winner" could access the teachers' mailboxes. Loser wanted access so an open forum test was developed.

The teacher mailboxes have no reasonable need to be an open public forum.

Foundation for Individual Rights on Camus (FIRE)

Universities can't create ethical rules about "civility in speech" without curbing students' rights to free expression. Ethical behavior can't be legally required.

Limited Public Forums

A building space or facility available to public expression and assembly for specific designated purposes. Content-based restrictions are subject to heightened judicial review. Content-neutral limits are more acceptable.

Nonpublic Forum

A building, space, or facility not open for public expression and assembly.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) 1994

Act that established both criminal and civil penalties for anyone who used "force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to halt the use of reproductive health services.

Compatible Use Doctrine

Allows speech restrictions when the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the usual activity of a certain public place at a certain time.

Nuremberg Files

American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) distributed wanted posters of doctors who have preformed abortions. They made a website with a list of doctors and crossed them off if they were murdered. FBI cautioned doctors on the list. Planned Parenthood sued them and won, the site was taken down.

The O'Brien Test determines if a restriction is constitutional. What are the 4 questions?

1) Is it content-neutral? 2) Does the law further a substantial or important govt interest? 3) Is the law narrowly tailored? No more restriction than is necessary. 4) Does the law leave adequate alternative channels of communication? MUST meet ALL 4 requirements to be constitutional.

Occupy Chicago (City of Chicago v. Alexander)

2011 protests against the top 1% inspired tent cities all across the country. In Chicago's Grant Park, police ushered the occupants out from 11pm to 6am because parks are closed at night for safety. Followed the O'Brien Test and the rule was deemed constitutional. Safety is important, the rule is content-neutral, park safety is important, protesters can demonstrate during all the other hours of the day.

Forums

Anyplace a message can be shared, from a light post, to a website, to a license plate, to a park, to a University. Have different levels of freedom of expression.

Monroe v. Bucks Sch. Dist.

Case. A teacher was punished for blogging derogatory statements about students. Her actions were disruptive and not worthy of protection. Her punishment was upheld.

Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. 1965.

Case. During the time of vietnam, 3 students in Des Moines wore black armbands to school to protest the war. School officials sent them home and said they couldn't return until they stopped wearing them. Family sued and S.C decided the students were not causing a problem and were allowed the free expression.

Brown v. Louisiana 1966.

Case. First coined the term Heckler's Veto in footnotes. African Americans were doing a sit-in protest at a library where they were not allowed to check out books. The librarian asked them to leave to avoid public unrest. Unconstitutional.

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network.

Case. In the state of New York, they tried to create movable zones of privacy 15 feet around any woman entering or leaving the abortion clinics. The court's refused to limit protestors on public sidewalks, but did allow the zone around entrances.

R.A.V. v. St Paul 1992.

Case. Juvenile convicted for burning a cross in the yard of an African-American couple. S.C. struck down the law because it only included certain reasons qualifying as hate. The said St. Paul could control behavior like cross burning without violating the 1st Amendment.

United States v. O'Brien 1968.

Case. Man arrested for burning draft card on the steps of a Boston courthouse. S.C. ruled that he destroyed a govt document and the govt had a legitimate interest in protecting such records. The protester had other means of protest available.

Cohen v. California 1968.

Case. Man wore a jacket with "**** the Draft" stenciled on it to court. Charged with 'fighting words' and disturbing the peace and was sent to jail. On appeal, the S.C. wrote that a word or phrase can't be banned regardless of context and that emotional expressions that are not intended to be obscene are protected by the 1st Amendment. This updated the "fighting words" definition from Chaplinski.

Frisby v. Schultz.

Case. Picketers were at home of abortion doctor and he could not leave his home. Court ruled to protect residential privacy.

Pickering v. Board of Education 1968.

Case. Teacher concerned with school board's use of funding disclosed information to a local newspaper. He was fired. The S.C. ruled that he was allowed to participate in public debate.

Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc.

Case. The health center made an injunction to keep right-to-life protesters 36 feet from the entrance and to prevent them from showing graphic images on signs to pregnant patients. Court allowed the 36 feet, but said the signs were free expression.

Beauharnais v. Illinois 1952.

Case. White Circle League's leader distributed pamphlets warning that the negros moving into the area were prone to rape, robberies, knives, guns, and marijuana. Broke an Illinois law about public exhibition against a class of citizens based on their race. S.C. upheld his conviction, but this case is an outlier, not a landmark.

(Kincaid v. Gibson) Kentucky State withheld yearbooks because they were "unsuitable" in color and quality. The students had paid for the yearbook and owned them, not the school.

Decision: They cannot be withheld, Limited public forum.

Heckler's Veto

Describes what happens when police or other authorities side with the heckler and stop free speech. Controversial speakers should be protected, not stopped because of heckler.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942.

Early landmark case for "fighting words" S.C. held that words that carry anger or threats hold less weight than the people's interest in peace and public order. Later revisited to curb only words that would tend to incite an imminent threat of violence.

Windmar v. Vincent 1981.

University of Kansas City wanted to prevent the Cornerstone Christian group from meeting on campus. They asked the group to stop meeting in a campus room. S.C. ruled that limited public forums, such as use of classrooms for meetings, must be regulated as content-neutral.