mass law ch 2

three components of class prior restraint

1. it imposes government oversight of whole categories of speech content or publication 2. allows government to choose what content is acceptable 3. empowers gov censors to ban content before it is distributed

red lion broadcasting vs FCC

1969 court ruled that regulations requiring broadcasters to seek out and broadcast competing views on controversial issues constitutional -broadcasters challenged FCC for rules to provide free political time for candidates and said it argued their first amendment right to choose info aired but court disagreed because its a monopolizing frequency

prior restraint

action taken by government to prohibit publication of specific document or text before its distributed to the public; a policy that requires government approval before publication

symbolic expression

action that warrants some first amendment protection because its primary purpose is to express ideas speech and action intertwined

jean jacque -social contract

all people are born free and equal but without constraints of morality and law would become uncivilized and violent

john locke

argued that gov censorship was improper use of power

why does speech deserve protection

because it aids the search for truth, advancers self governance, provides check on government abuse of power and offers a safety valve for social discontent (some believe most significant value of it is improve ability of minority groups in society to be heard)

in addition to protecting individuals right of expression the supreme court says first amendment also contains right to refrain from speaking.

compelled speech

gov actions that directly regulate or intentionally restrict particular messages are called

content based

mccullen vs coakley

court held that 35 ft buffer zone around reproductive clinics was unconstitutional prior restraint on those who sought to counsel women seeking abortions

mccutcheon vs FEC

court majority said that aggregate limit on money reduced individuals ability to participate in political process without advancing gov interest in preventing corruption -can only target type of corruption: quid pro quo (bribery or payment for specific action)

injunction

court order prohibiting person or organization from doing some specified act (nixon tried to do this)

snyder v phelps

court ruled that even outrageous speech on public sidewalk about issue cannot be sanctioned -sought damages from phelps family and church for picketing his sons funeral with fag troops signs

lane v franks

court ruled that first amendment protects right of public employees to testify in court on a matter of public concern -court clarified boundary between public employee speech and citizen speech.

seditious libel

criticism of government or comm meant to incite people to change gov

content neutral restrictions mean

do not target or restrict particular messages because of content laws that incidentally and unintentionally affect speech as they advance other important gov interests

defamation

false communication that harms another's reputation and subjects him or her to ridicule and scorn; incorporates both libel (written) and slander(spoken) criticism of people

nelson v mcclatchy

first amendment protection of editorial autonomy allows newspapers in washington to prohibit reporters from engaging in political activities

united states vs brien

first content neutral case with burning draft card -against a statute that was made to ensure efficient and orderly operation of draft -could have expressed his opposition to draft in many other way -government won

1 bedrock principle

freedom of speech and of press cannot coexist without prior restraint

compelling interest

gov interest of highest order..an interest gov required to protect (core constitutional concerns) ex: national security, public health, welfare, electoral process

designated public forum

gov spaces or buildings that are available for public use (within limit) ex: ban on begging in michigan but repealed bc free speech in public place

nonpublic forums

government held property that is not available for public speech and assembly purposes military bases, prisons, post office

public forum

government property held for use by public usually for purposes of exercising rights of speech and assembly this lets homeless people civil rights activists etc to march and assemble in public places

`6 values of free speech

individual liberty-intertwined with fundamental natural rights self gov- freedom to discuss political candidates and policies to render judgments limited gov power-free speech of people serves as check on authoritarian rule and limit to abuse of power attainment of truth- advances marketplace of idea to increase knowledge and the discovery of truth. safety valve- allow people to express problems before they escalate into violence (free speech mechanism for letting off steam) its own end-valuable good and cherished right

important gov interest

interest of gov that is substantial or significant but not compelling (when its more than merely convenient or reasonable

categorical balancing

judges or courts practice of deciding cases by weighing different broad categories such as political speech against other categories if interests such as privacy to create rules that may be applied in later cases with similar facts

traditional public forum

lands designed for public use and historically used for public gathering discussion and association (public streets sidewalks and parks) protected

obrien test three parts

law is held content neutral and constitutional if: 1. it isn't related to suppression of speech 2. advances an important government interest 3. narrowly tailored to achieve that interest with only an incidental restriction of free expression

content based laws vs content neutral laws

laws enacted because of message, the subject matter or ideas expressed in regulated speech (regulate what is being said and single out certain messages) laws enacted to advance government purpose unrelated to content of speech (restrict where when and how ideas are expressed ex: laws limiting noise in hospital zones

laws of general application

laws such as tax and equal employment laws that fall within express power of gov. laws of general application are generally reviewed under minima scrutiny

ad hoc balancing

making decisions according to specific facts of case under review rather than more general principles so courts tend to avoid broad statements about the first amendment and decide what it means with each specific case

what two issues present news challenges to the supreme courts interpretation and application of first amendment

media convergence and consolidation

three categories of public forums

nature of place pattern of its primary activities history of public access

origin of first amendment

never meant to pose complete ban to all government action involving freedom of speech or of press but to prevent US gov from adopting types of suppressive laws that flourished in england ex: prior review (reading paper before publication)

original intent

perceived intent of framers of first amendment that guides some contemporary first amendment application and interpretation

when is prior restraint justified

permitted either when there is clear and convincing evidence that publication will cause great harm that can't be addressed by less intrusive measures or when news media clearly engaged in criminal activity to obtain info like breaking in (obstruction of military recruitment, obscene publications, incitements to violence, forcible overthrow of gov, fighting words, publication of troop locations)

private property owners generally control access to their property unless the property assumes a quasi public function

prune yard shopping center v robins -reasoned that protecting free speech of teenagers circulating a petition didn't impose on rights of property owner bc mall was public space and what they did didn't infringe on owners speech

hill v colorado

ruled that state law creating moving non protest zones around people entering abortion clinics was a valid narrowly tailored content neutral TPM restriction that directly advanced gov's significant interests in protecting the public from harassment

political speech

speech that favors or disfavors a particular public issue, policy, or candidate which lies at what core of first amendment designed to protect strict scrutiny usually used

intermediate scrutiny

standard applied by courts to review laws that implicate core constitutional values also called heightened review crafted new test called obrien test that was 3 parts used to determine whether a content neutral law is constitutional

rational review

standard of judicial review that assumes the constitutional of reasonable legislative or administrative enactments and applies minimum scrutiny to their review have rational purpose

prior restraint

stops speech before it is expressed and halts press before publication essence of censorship

the most rigorous test used by court to determine whether law is constitutional

strict scrutiny

content based laws are usually unconstitutional so court uses test to stop government censorship ... what is it

strict scrutiny - test for determining constitutionality of laws aimed at speech content under which government must show it is using least restrictive means available to directly advance compelling interest

pleasant grove city vs Summum

supreme court established power of gov to select monuments it chooses to display permanently in public parks -gov can control speech of its own workers and speech of programs it funds to the extent the speech represents gov or its programs

citizens united v federal elections commission

supreme court found laws restrictions on corporate and union election spending facially unconstitutional -happened because congress passed BCRA (bipartisan campaign reform act) which banned soft money contributions to national political parties and imposing limits on amount and source of funds they can accept and spend -said unrestricted corporate election spending can lead to political corruption

Simon and Schuster v crime victims board

supreme court struck down NY law that attempted to compensate crime victims and limit rewards of crime. passed law that required convicted criminals who earned money from publications to turn profits over to state supreme court ruled that content based law did advance a compelling gov interest but unconstitutionally punished a substantial quantity of literature fully protected by first amendment. over broad

united states vs alvarez

this was faced the question of how much 1st amendment protection is given to false speech -made it a crime to lie about being awarded US military honors violated constitution -theres no general exception to the first amendment for false statements -false claims about being military cause no threat so its fine -people can wear medals they just can't lie about the honors

some content neutral laws are called

time place manner laws or TPM (concept that laws regulating conditions of speech are more acceptable than those regulating content also laws that regulate these conditions

free speech two things

view free speech as a fundamental natural right OR as means to advance other important interests such as self governance

difference between rational review and heightened form of review

when gov action fall within delegated power of gov such as power to levy taxes court assumes law is constitutional and uses this if law affects constitutionally protected rights such as speech the court use this

is liking a post on Facebook speech?

yes in 2014 it was ruled yes