MCOM 3320 Final Cases

Memoirs v. Massachusetts

"memoirs of a woman of pleasure" stated it was obscene book, but the book holds a social value so it cannot be obscene.

Lovell v. Griffin (1938) Prior Restraint v. 1st Amendment

-$50 fine (large amount in that time) -The city council responded to citizens' complaints to Jehovah's Witnesses -Passed an ordinance because they were an annoyance to the citizens that denied people to pass out leaflets without permission -Lovell ignored that rule and went door to door. She was arrested and fined. Didn't have the money to pay so spent the 30 days in jail. -Appealed on the basis of the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press) -Ends up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Previous ruling is unanimously appealed and the ordinance is deemed unconstitutional.

Dennis v. United States (1951) Yates v. United States (1957)

-Almost carbon copies of one another, with different end results -Following WW2 there was a lot of anti-communism feelings that reached a fever pitch with Senator Joe McCarthy saying there was at least 53 communists in the US State Department -Both Dennis and Yates were charged with violation of the Smith Act of 1917, which says it's illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the government -Dennis raised the Clear and Present Danger test; the judge said there was probable Clear and Present Danger and he was convicted and had to pay a fine. -Yates and 13 others were charged with violating the Smith Act and convicted with 5 years in prison and $10,000 each -Yates and comrades appealed; the Supreme Court said the advocacy unlinked directly to plans without action IS protected speech -Basically set free by the Supreme Court -Action is not key when it comes to threats to the U.S. government -ALWAYS TAKE THE LATER CASE AS A GUIDELINE WHEN TRYING TO PREDICT THE OUTCOME OF A SIMILAR CASE

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Prior Restraint v. 1st Amendment

-Brandenburg was part of the KKK -He said on TV to take revenge on public officials that were trying to integrate races into society -He was convicted for violating the Ohio Criminal Syndication Act; 10 years in state prison -Case ends up at the Supreme Court; ruled that the Ohio law was unconstitutional and there had to be clear evidence of plans to cause violence. Ohio law was too broad and could be used to convict someone for doing no more than talking about violence.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Fighting Words

-Chaplinsky was Jehovah's witness, claiming that spreading literature basically denounces all churches as frauds besides the Jehovah's Witness Church -Police tried to help him by saying his message wasn't being taken well and maybe he should try a different approach for the sake of his own safety -Chap calls the officer a racketeer and he was arrested based on the grounds that you cannot throw annoying or offensive language to any other person in a public area -Case taken to Supreme Court;

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

-Criminal anarchy -Left wing manifesto: advocated violent overthrown of the government to establish communist socialism in the U.S. -Convicted for violating New York law -He appeals based on the 14th Amendment: cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process. He feels he has been deprived. -Not a U.S. case, but a New York case -The U.S. erased 92 years of precedents of not getting involved in states' business by getting involved in this case -He wins on the grounds of 1st Amendment rights being violated without due process, which then violates his 14th Amendment rights -Later convicted -14th Amendment nationalizes 1st Amendment

Schenck v. United States (1919)

-Opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes -Criminal anarchy -Distributing leaflets late in the war to resist the draft -Charged for going against the espionage act -Proved the 1st Amendment is not absolute -Ex: You cannot yell fire in a crowded room when there is no fire -U.S. can protect itself - if people are doing something that seems to be an attack on the government itself, the government can take action -"Clear and Present Danger" Test: Justice Holmes. If someone's speech presents a clear and present danger to the public welfare, that speech can be prohibited -Rules that speech by Schenk is not protected

New York Times v. US (1971) Prior Restraint v. 1st Amendment

-Pentagon Papers Case; fastest case to go through courts -NYT received a copy of a 7000 page document called the History of US Decision Making Process of Vietnam policy -Case began on June 13, 1971 -All documents were at least 3 years old, some of what was still classified information -Worried that exposure of this document would lead China and North Korea to believe that the US couldn't be trusted. -Nixon goes to the judge for permanent injunction of the publication -Claimed the 1917 Espionage Act says those who illegally obtain classified materials and pass to foreign powers with the intent to harm the US; no one believed this was the NYT intent. -Then Washington Post starts to print the documents as well, leading to multiple sources printing the papers. -Case taken to Supreme Court: One side argued that the President has the right to protect the nation against publication of potentially harmful documents -The judges say that any type of prior restraint violates the 1st Amendment and that there is no clear or present danger -Overall conclusion: Do people have the right to know what the government is doing? What could or should be classified and who should have access to such info?

Near v. Minnesota (1931) Prior Restraint v. 1st Amendment

-The Saturday Press -First Supreme Court case to see if the 1st Amendment prohibits censorship -Near and Gilford angered city officials because they exposed violators of prohibition (alcohol being illegal) -Critics of them said they were engaged in blackmail because they would keep their names out of the paper if they paid them -Also said a lot of ethnic slurs, etc, which angered many people -Gilford was shot -After 9 weeks of printing, the city attorney shut it down; said they could only publish the truth with good motives for justifiable ends -They appealed -The issue here is we can limit free speech in the name of comfort and an orderly society -Supreme Court hands down a 4 to 5 decision saying any act of prior restraint normally violates the 1st Amendment, however in some cases prior restraint is justified.

Nebraska 3-part test

1. Has there been intense publicity likely to affect the fairness of trial? 2. Are there alternatives to a gag order that might protect the defendant's rights? 3. Would a gag order likely prove effective?

Branzburg 3-part test

1. Is the information relevant? 2. Is there a compelling need for the information? 3. Is it available elsewhere?

Bigelow v. virginia

A Virginia statute made it a misdemeanor for "any person, by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication, or in any other manner, [from encouraging] or [prompting] the procuring of abortion or miscarriage." Bigelow, director and managing editor of the Virginia Weekly, was convicted under this law when his newspaper ran an advertisement for an organization which referred women to clinics and hospitals for abortions.

village of hoffman estates v. flipside

An ordinance of appellant village requires a business to obtain a license if it sells any items that are "designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs." Guidelines define the items (such as "roach clips," which are used to smoke cannabis, "pipes," and "paraphernalia"), the sale of which is required to be licensed. Appellee, which sold a variety of merchandise in its store, including "roach clips" and specially designed pipes used to smoke marihuana, upon being notified that it was in possible violation of the ordinance, brought suit in Federal District Court, claiming that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. The District Court upheld the ordinance and awarded judgment to the village defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague on its face

New york v. Ferber

Anybody who sells photos of children in sex were prosecuted. NY says that passes the 1st amendment and challenged and ny drew the line at 16 yrs old.

Associated press v. us

By-laws of the Associated Press, a cooperative association engaged in gathering and distributing news in interstate and foreign commerce, prohibited service of AP news to nonmembers, prohibited members from furnishing spontaneous news to nonmembers, and empowered members to block membership applications of competitors. A contract between AP and a Canadian press association obligated both to furnish news exclusively to each other. Charging, inter alia, that the bylaws and the contract violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Government sought an injunction against AP and member publishers. Upon the Government's motion, the District Court rendered summary judgment.

lorain journal co. V. us

For 15 years, a newspaper publisher enjoyed a substantial monopoly of the mass dissemination of local and national news and advertising in its community, and 99% coverage of the community's families. After the establishment of a competing radio station, the publisher refused to accept local advertising from those who advertised over the radio station. The purpose of the publisher was to destroy the broadcasting company.

minneapolis star and trib co v. minnesota commission of revenue

From 1967 to 1971, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company, a publisher of a morning and evening newspaper in Minneapolis, was exempt from a state sales and use tax provided periodic publications. In 1971, the Minnesota legislature imposed a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in publishing. In 1974, the legislature exempted the first $100,000 worth of ink and paper consumed a year. After the enactment of this exemption, the Star Tribune found itself paying roughly two-thirds of the total revenue raised by the tax.

Capital Cities cable v. crisp

In 1980, Oklahoma's Attorney General determined that the re-broadcasting of out-of-state alcoholic beverage commercials by Oklahoma cable television stations violated the State's ban against advertising alcoholic beverages. Richard Crisp, the Director of Oklahoma's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, warned the offending cable operators that their continued transmission of banned beverage commercials would result in criminal prosecution. In response, and on behalf of other cable operators, Capital Cities Cable challenged the constitutionality of Oklahoma's advertising ban. On appeal from the Tenth Circuit's reversal of a district court decision favoring Capital Cities Cable, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

bates v. state bar of arizona

In regulating the Arizona Bar, the Supreme Court of Arizona restricted advertising by attorneys. Bates was a partner in a law firm which sought to provide low-cost legal services to people of moderate income who did not qualify for public legal aid. Bates and his firm would only accept routine legal matters (many of which did not involve litigation) and depended on a large number of patrons given the low financial return from each client. In assessing their concept of legal services, Bates's firm decided that it would be necessary to advertise its availability and low fees. Court agreed you can advertise for attorneys.

Miller v. California

Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.

The Freedom of information Act gives reporters (and others) access to documents maintained in

NONE OF THE ABOVE

Central Hudson V. public service commission

No utility can advertise suggesting that we use more electricity. the supreme court overruled. the advertisement must be for and not misleading, cant advertise for illegal products, regulation has to direct

cbs v. fcc

On October 11, 1979, the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee(Committee) requested each of the three major television networks (petitioners) to provide time for a 30-minute program between 8 p. m. and 10:30 p.m. on any day from the 4th through the 7th of December, 1979. The Committee intended to present, in conjunction with President Carter's formal announcement of his candidacy, a documentary outlining the record of his administration. The petitioners refused to make the requested time available. CBS emphasized the large number of candidates for the Presidential nominations and the potential disruption of regular programming to accommodate requests for equal treatment, but offered to sell a 5-minute segment at 10:55 p.m. on December 8 and a 5-minute segment in the daytime; American Broadcasting Cos. replied that it had not yet decided when it would begin selling political time for the 1980 Presidential campaign, but later indicated that it would allow such sales in January, 1980; and National Broadcasting Co., noting the number of potential requests for time from Presidential candidates, stated that it was not prepared to sell time for political programs as early as December, 1979. The Committee then filed a complaint with the FCC, charging that the networks had violated their obligation to provide "reasonable access" under § 312(a)(7). The FCC ruled that the networks had violated the statute, concluding that their reasons for refusing to sell the time requested were "deficient" under the FCC's standards

quincy cable v. fcc

Quincy Cable contends that the FCC's orders violate [730 F.2d 1550] the first amendment of the Constitution and are an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. Quincy Cable further contests the lawfulness of a $5,000 forfeiture imposed on it by the FCC for Quincy Cable's failure to comply with an order of the Chief of the Cable Television Bureau of the FCC.

los angeles v. preferred

Respondent sued petitioners, the city of Los Angeles and its Department of Water and Power (DWP), in Federal District Court, alleging, inter alia, a violation of its rights under the First Amendment by reason of (1) the city's refusal to grant respondent a cable television franchise on the ground that respondent had failed to participate in an auction for a single franchise in the area and (2) DWP's refusal to grant access to poles or underground conduits used for power lines. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Reno v. ACLU

Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, the Act criminalized the intentional transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community standards. After being enjoined by a District Court from enforcing the above provisions, except for the one concerning obscenity and its inherent protection against child pornography, Attorney General Janet Reno appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act's special review provisions.

Paris adult theater v. slaton

State officials in Georgia sought to enjoin the showing of allegedly obscene films at the Paris Adult Theatre. The Theatre clearly warned potential viewers of the sexual nature of the films and required that patrons be at least 21 years of age. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the films were "hard core" pornography unprotected by the Constitution.

cbs v. democratic N.C.

The Democratic National Committee requested a declaratory ruling from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that the Communications Act or the First Amendment precluded a licensee from having a general policy of refusing to sell time to "responsible entities" to present their views on public issues. The Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace filed a complaint with the FCC, alleging that a broadcaster had violated the First Amendment by refusing to sell it time to broadcast spot announcements expressing the group's views on the Vietnam conflict, and that the station's coverage of anti-war views did not meet the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC rejected the Fairness Doctrine challenge, and ruled that a broadcaster was not prohibited from having a policy of refusing to accept paid editorial advertisements by individuals and organizations like respondents. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "a flat ban on paid public issue announcements is in violation of the First Amendment, at least when other sorts of paid announcements are accepted," and remanded the causes to the FCC to develop regulations governing which, and how many, editorial announcements would be aired.

FTC v. Palmolive

The Federal Trade Commission charged respondents, an advertiser and an advertising agency, with using commercials that were deceptive within the meaning of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The commercials purported to give viewers visual proof that the advertiser's shaving cream could soften "sandpaper," but, unknown to viewers, the substance that appeared to be sandpaper in the commercials was in fact a simulated prop, or "mock-up," made of plexiglass to which sand had been applied. After a hearing, the Commission issued a cease and desist order against respondents that could be interpreted to forbid all use of undisclosed simulations in television commercials. The Court of Appeals set aside the order as too broad. Five months later, the Commission issued a revised order prohibiting respondents from presenting advertisements depicting a test, experiment, or demonstration represented as actual proof of a product claim but not in fact constituting actual proof because of the undisclosed use of a prop or mock-up. From the court's judgment setting aside that order, the Commission petitioned this Court for certiorari.

texas monthly time v. bullock

The state of Texas offered a tax exemption to religious publications during a 3-year period. Texas Monthly, Inc, a nonreligious publisher, claimed that this promoted religion in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Texas Monthly filed suit in a state court seeking to recover the taxes it had paid in 1985. The court ruled that the exemption violated the Establishment Clause by advancing religion and the Free Press Clause by discriminating based on the content of publications. Since the court did not have the authority to rewrite tax statutes, it instead invalidated taxes levied on nonreligious publications and ordered the state to refund Texas Monthly's tax payments. A state appeals court reversed the decision.

United church of christ v. fcc

a church run television station was attempting to get their FCC license renewed. A number of community members opposed the renewal because the tv station was broadcasting a lot of racist propaganda. Initially, FCC would not allow them to participate in the license renewal process because FCC only allowed those who suffered interference of some monetary injury to have standing to join the proceeding. The Appellate Court found that while standing in Federal Court is limited by Article III of the Constitution, an Administrative proceeding is not a court, and therefore is not bound by the same strict rules. The Court found that anyone affected by the Agency's decision should have standing to join the Administrative proceeding. Since the purpose of an Administrative Agency is to function on behalf of the public interest, participation in hearings should be as broad as possible so that the Agency can best ascertain what the public interest is. Note that this decision doesn't mean that anyone can join the proceeding, they must have some linkage to the outcome before being granted standing.

posadas de puerto rico v. tourism co

advertising of gambling is illegal, hotel had been fined several times by the touring company the hotel challenges law. Legal service and legal to gamble. Advertising is protected speech

Times V. Sullivan

arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.

Red lion broadcasting v. fcc

billyjames had a program and attacked fred cook. cook considered libel action but instead went for redress. he asked for opportunity to respond and they sent him a rate card to cook so he would have to pay as well. cook appealed. they cant charge him

FCC v. Pacifica foundation

broadcasting enjoys more limited freedom. speech said words such as "tits,etc" it was indecent but not obscene. However, they had to start broadcasting during the safe haven period. 10pm-6am

Roth v. US

corrupts the 1st amendment with obscenity. hicklin rule takes from adults. Roth sent obscenity through the mail and was convicted.

Illinois citizens v. FCC

fined 2000$ for airing a broadcast where someone called in asking listeners to describe their experiences with oral sex, they challenge the fine. Federal appeal court says the fine is good, fcc has a right to fine broadcasters, mention the time of day, children are not in school, could be presumed to be listening.

Bethel school district v. fraser

fraser used vulgar language in speech and the court called his remarks obscene. his speech was sexual and not political. undermined the schools basic education.

Warner lambert co. V. FTC

group of law students was outraged at campbells soup commercial bc they opened a can on cae=mera and you could see marbles in the bowl. Wanted to fire them for deceptive advertising. Also asked for a hearing against listerine saying it doesnt kill all bacteria and does not prevent colds.

Valentine v. Chrestensen

had a submarine and invited tourists to tour it. He started to hand out pamphlets to advertise it and ny said he couldnt. was arrested on his pamphlets he put something that said "political debate" 1st amendment right are being taken. but the city has the right to regulate commercial speech.

First national bank v. belotti

he First National Bank of Boston (Petitioner) is prohibited by state statute from spending "for the purpose of influencing the vote on any question that does not affect the corporation directly." Petitioner wanted to publicize a view of a constitutional amendment that would allow state legislation to impose graduated tax on income of individuals.

Stanley v. Georgia

illegal to posses obscene material. stanley was arrested and the police got a search warrant bc he was suspected of running bookmaking activities. they found films that were obscene.

kennedy for pres v. fcc

kennedy was challenging jimmy carter argued that apress conference where cart gave a speech but kennedy shouldve gotten half an hour. COurt says they cover the news and press is news.

NBC v. us

mutual wins contract to broadcast the world series in 1939 and made the congress interested bc a lot of people couldnt hear it live. The rules prevented them from carrying the signal so the fcc drew up chain broadcasting regulations. So changed the rules in order for them to broadcast it in the future.

Old Dominion Brand No. (Libel Case)

o 1974- same year as Gertz. Letter carriers in Richmond who were neither members of the letter carrier's union nor did they pay any dues or fees to the union. The union published a leaflet defaming the scabs--- crosses the picket lines in a labor dispute... someone who does not go along with the union. In this leaflet they printed a list of people who weren't in the union. They quote Jack London "scabs are traitors to his God, his country, his family, and his class". They people they called scabs sued on the count of libel per se. Justice Powell- libel is limited to false and defamatory of assertion of fact... and this was NOT one of these times. Why? Because it is an opinion not an assertion of fact. The language of the leaflet was completely protected because it was an opinion because it was being used in a loose and figurative manner.... Saying it is a rhetorical hyperbole. No one would understand the leaflet...no one would look at this and believe it is actually an assertion of fact it was just one big exaggeration

Rosenblatt v. Baer (Libel Case)

o Baer had been manager of a county owned ski slope in New Hampshire got caught in a political debate and resigned. Rosenblatt said that the ski slope was more profitable under the new manager. Baer sued because the article made it look like he had been skimming money. The court said in Times v Sullivan public officials in not able to collect libel damage from a media outlet unless they can prove actual malice which is difficult to do usually. Baer was considered a public official. He won the judgement until the Supreme Court nullified the ruling because he was a public official and had to prove actual malice (which in the case there was no way he could prove it). Answers the question on who was a public official? Persons who are in a position to help in resolutions are public persons. Includes two kinds of ways to be considered public officials: people in the hierarchy of government officials who have ruling over conduct of government affairs and someone who APPEARS to the PUBLIC that way, whether they are or are not. Public officials if: does she or he have access to news media and court wants to know do they have policy authority making

Garrison v. Lousiana (Libel Case)

o Garrison was criticizing the judges in Louisiana. The judges didn't like this so they charged him with a criminal libel case. Wanted to lock him up. NYT case applies to criminal libel

New York Times v. Sullivan (Libel Case)

o In 1964, advertising was equitable to obscenity. A full page ad in NYT starts with an editorial quote with the phrase "The growing movement of peaceful mass demonstration by Negros in the south is something new, let congress heed their heeding voice for they will be heard". Came out essentially in favor of congress doing something for civil rights. Episode in Montgomery in 1960 at Alabama State University tried to integrate the campus and fell victim to white violence. Appeal for people to join Martin Luther King and lots of other people wanting to do the right thing and make a change. What got us in trouble and in court was because it is talking about how black students are only protesting their constitutional rights in the 14th amendment, yet they are being met with violence... calls these people violators of the constitution by doing this to the African Americans. They are also saying these people must fear the peaceful protestors. Single most important libel case. Brought in to court because the NYT talks about the police tear gassing and starving students after singing etc. and Sullivan believes that is defamation. The story turned out to have many false info/ discrepancy. Libel per se... you are calling me a liar and saying I am in the wrong and breaking the law. The supreme court reversed the ruling UNANIMOUSLY in favor of the NYT. They made changes in 4 legal principles. Advertising for a cause is protected speech if the statements would be protected outside of advertisements. First Amendment and Libel per se... Libel can claim no immunity from constitution limitations...debate on public topics should be wide open it may well include sometime unpleasant attacks on public officials. They give partial protection to false statements... does not mean you can lie. Proving actual malice dealing with public officials

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc (Libel Case)

o Needed this case to really nail down the definition of public official. Also teaches us the legal term "dicta". A little bit complicated because they had to have a case before this one. The first one was there was a youth that was shot and killed by a police officer. The police officer was tried and convicted of murder. It got A LOT of press attention. After the police officer was convicted the family decided to sue the police department of wrongful death. Gertz is the one the family selected to take on this case. Do you become a public figure just because you decide to take over a public case such as this one? Robert Welch company had a paper called the Public Opinion called Gertz a communist frontier. Court decided the NYT times doesn't apply and ruled in favor of Gertz. Then he reversed himself and change his mind on the grounds that articles discussed issue of public importance. Went to supreme court. Is Gertz an public figure? SC hands down a 5-4 decision that explore issues that were not critical to the case... DICTA, In the Dicta he says 3 types of public figures: involuntary public figure--- only a public figure because of social reasons, limited public figure--- people who thrusted themselves to the forefront of public controversy in order to resolve them (General Walker), All purpose public figure--- person who occupies position of such persuasive power influence that are deemed Pf of all purposes is the name a general house hold word. WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON, LIKE PUBLIC OFFICIALS, THEY HAVE READY ACCESS TO THE MEDIA AND VOLUNTARY EXPOSED THEMSELVES TO DEFAMATORY FALSEHOODS. DICTUM libel is limited to false and defamatory assertions of fact. States might want to make it easier for private individuals to win libel cases against the media. Burden of proof should be lower for private individuals. Private individuals must prove SOME degree of fault. Private individual must prove that they have been harmed unless they can prove actual malice

Wolston v. Reader's Digest (Libel Case)

o Question: Once you are a public figure are you now forever a public figure? o What: In 1957 & 1958, Wolston's aunt and uncle were charged with being Russian agents. Eventually Wolston's aunt and uncle pleaded guilty to espionage. During investigation Wolston failed to answer a Grand Jury subpoena. Later he did appear pleading illness in the first instance. The fact he didn't appear, gained publicity. Wolston pleaded guilty to contempt of court and got 3 years of probation for not answering first subpoena. Wolston become an American citizen, served in army during WW2 and remained in governmental service after war. He was never charged with spying. 16 years later, Wolston was named in a book: KGB Secret Work of Soviet Agents, which was published in 1974 in Readers Digest. In this book, Wolston was listed alongside his aunt and uncle as among those who either have been identified as soviet agents or who have been found guilty of perjury or contempt with connection of spying charges. Wolston Sued Readers Digest for libel. District court dismissed ruling Wolston was a public figure with no way to prove actual malice. o Result: Supreme court reversed decision 8-1. Said Wolston never was a public figure. He did thrust himself into the middle of any public controversy like Walker did.

Hutchison v. Proxmire (Libel Case)

o Question: Were Proxmire's activities and statements against Hutchinson's research protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution? o What: In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the "Golden Fleece Award of the Month." The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the "nonsense" of Hutchinson's research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmire's statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss. o Result: No. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that Proxmire's statements in his newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. However, in upholding this ruling, the Court also found that Proxmire's statements were not made with "actual malice" and thus, were not libelous. Chief Justice Burger, relying on the Court's finding in Doe v. McMillan (1973), concluded that while speeches in Congress and discussions with staff were protected by Section 6, statements in newsletters and press releases were not because they were not "essential to the deliberations of the Senate" nor were they part of the legislature's "deliberative process."

A.P. v. Walker (Libel Case)

o Two cases put together because court wants to make a point Both are about people are not technically public officials but get a lot of media attention and in the public eye. Major General Walker, during Vietnam, pension of a Major General was quite a lot of money plus a lot of other benefits. Walker gave up his pension because he resigned... something must have been going on. There was... there was a big controversy over his troop indoctrination program because he was abusing his recruits. Him resigning led to a lot of press attention. Ole Miss September 1962 James Meredith an African America has enrolled and is going to be the first Black student at Ole Miss. Violence occurs. AP dispatch said and said that General Walker led an assault on a federal marshal... this is a federal offense. If this is incorrect AP is guilty of libel per se. Walker files a long chain of law suits and files them in the state of Texas... how could he do this even though the events occurred in Mississippi? Associated Press is a national press which other news places can pick up and publish their news which Texas did. The Texas court ruled in favor of Walker. Goes to Supreme Court... wants to know if the NYT v Sullivan rule of malice still applies to people who are not public officials, yet still in the public eye. Wallie Butts was the athletic director at the University of Georgia. The press quoted a guy who said he was patched into the wrong phone conversation and overheard a convo between Bear Bryant (put Alabama football on the map) and Wallie Butts where they were fixing the game between the Georgia Bulldogs and Alabama. This quote gets published in the Saturday evening news. Butts sues because he said his reputation has been damaged. Says General Walker has to prove actual malice but Butts does not. Answers the question that there are still some public figures that are still held up to the same standards as public officials... but some that do not. IMPORTANT PHRASE: "purposeful action". Court said Walker took purposeful action but Butts did not, meaning he forcibly pressing himself into the limelight and the public's eye. The AP tried to plea truth but Supreme court was not interested in that and AP was not successful, but AP still wins the SC case because Walker could not prove actual malice.

Time v. Hill (Privacy Case)

o What: 3 escaped convicts held the James Hill family hostages in their own home for 19 hours. The crisis resolved itself and the Hills were not harmed. They told the police that the criminals treated them curiously, so the cops shot and killed 2 of them. The Hills were upset because the event gained publicity but they didn't ask for it. They ended up selling their house, leaving Philadelphia, and moving to Connecticut. The following year, Joseph Hayes wrote a novel called the Desperate Hours based on the Hill hostage situation, but in his novel the family was treated violently. 2 years later, there is a play based on the novel, with very little factual matter. The play was headed to Broadway, so Life Magazine (property of Time) reviewed it. The editors of Life Magazine thought it would be nice to take the people in the play to the house and shoot pictures there, and the new homeowners were happy for them to come inside their home. Pictures in Life Magazine showed the convicts ruffing up the son, the daughter biting one of the convicts, and the father throwing a gun through a door. In reality, none of this happened. The editor changed the copy to make a direct association with this play and the events in 1952. Hill Family gains a lot of attention again, even though they moved, so Hill sues for invasion of privacy and win a $75,000 judgment in a trial court. Time Inc. says they have 1st Amendment right to do this and the Supreme Court says Hills will have to show actual malice. o Result: The case was remanded and the Hills gave up their fight. Only 3 members of the Supreme Court endorsed the malice standard. In a later case 7 years later, they did enforce the malice standard. Supreme Court has said even a private individual, if they're going to recover damages in a privacy case, will have to show malice.

Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (Privacy Case)

o What: August 18, 1971, 17 year-old Cynthia Conn was raped after a drinking party in Atlanta and is left to die. State law made it illegal to broadcast the name of rape victims and the media observed that law when they reported the episode. 8 months later, the 6 men accused of crime appeared in court. In a plea bargain 5 of the 6 pleaded guilty to attempted rape, however, the 6th suspect pleaded not guilty. Reporter for WSBTB in Atlanta, a Cox broadcasting station, was present at the hearing. The reporter asked the court clerk to show him the indictment so he could get name and details correct. That evening, the news disclosed the name of the victim. Normally an action for disclosure of private facts can only be brought by the victim. Georgia rape reporting law allowed for close relatives of victims to initiate civil action on behalf of the dead. Her father sued WSBTV and Cox broadcasting based on Georgia law. Cox Broadcasting claims they have a 1st Amendment right to publish the news. Trial court said that the Georgia law was violated and the State Supreme Court in Georgia upheld decision. o Result: US Supreme Court: 6 justice majority said a state cannot prevent publication of material in public records of a court, nor can it define such as invasion of privacy.

Dietermann v. Time (Privacy Case & Reddick's favorite)

o What: Dietemann was a plumber who was suspected to practice medicine without a license. Life wanted to do a story over this so journalists and editors talked to district attorney in Los Angeles. Said they could get better information and could be a good source of evidence. A man and woman pose as husband and wife, the woman has a recorder and the man has a camera. They say they are friends of Dietemann client, so he takes them into his study. He does an exam on the woman and pronounces the diagnoses that Jacky McCaff has breast cancer as a result from eating rancid butter 9 years, 11 months, and 7 days earlier. He prescribes minerals and herbs to help her. Everything he says was transmitted to police out in a van in the street. Dietemann is arrested and charged for practicing medicine without a license. Before he enters his plea, the Time articles appear. He sues asking for $300,00 in damages. o Result: Trial court awards him $1,000. 9th circuit court of appeals affirms the lower court decision saying that the 1st amendment does not give a license to reporters to trespass, to steal, or to intrude. Court said there is a public interest in stopping Dietemann, but did not justify intrusion.

Pearson v. Dodd (Privacy Case)

o What: Dodd was suspected of dipping into campaign funds to pay for his living expenses. Members of his own staff copied documents, to show this, and gave copies of documents to Jack Anderson and Drew Pearson. Both of them wrote articles in their Washington columns about Dodd. Dodd Sues for invasion of privacy and conversion (theft). The documents never actually left the office though, they were just photocopies. o Result: Federal appeals court decision. Found in favor of two journalists on two grounds: the documents never left office, so they weren't stolen and there's no crime in listening to an eavesdropper. The information was true, so Dodd was going to prove actual malice or another issue.

Duncan v. WJLA TV (Privacy Case)

o What: Linda Duncan was standing on a street corner in Washington DC, when across the street a newsperson from WJLA TV was on air. WJLA was doing a report on genital herpes. During the filming, the camera goes over the reporter (Betsy Ashton)'s shoulder and zooms in on Linda, while Betsy talks about there being no cure for herpes. o Result: Federal Appeals court in this case said, the 6:00 version is OK, but there was not enough context in the 11:00 version to let audience know they weren't talking about Linda Duncan. She sues claiming defamation and false light of privacy. Defamation is thrown out, but she wins on invasion of privacy.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.

o What: Milkovich was the wrestling coach at Maple Heights High School in Ohio. During the 1974 season, the team was involved in an altercation at a home match, during which several people were injured. After the altercation, the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OSHAA) placed the team on probation. Then, several parents and students sued the OSHAA, in the Court of Common Pleas, seeking a restraining order of the probation, on the grounds that due process had not been afforded to the members of the team. The court overturned the conviction and, the next day, Respondent published an article alleging that Petitioner had lied so the probation would be overturned. Petitioner brought suit, alleging defamation. o Question: Whether a newspaper can be held liable for defamation, when it publishes an article about a private figure which, albeit opinion, was designed as a character attack? o Result: The Court reversed the lower court ruling that the article constituted a constitutionally protected opinion, and held that while the First Amendment does guarantee uninhibited speech, the important social values underlying the law of defamation recognize a strong interest in preventing and redressing character attacks.

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (Privacy Case)

o What: On February 9, 1978, a 15-year-old student was gunned down in the Hayes Junior High School parking lot in West Virginia, 13 miles west of Charleston. All 7 of the eyewitnesses pointed fingers to a 14 year-old, who was then arrested for the crime. There were two newspapers in Charleston at this time, one in the morning and one in the afternoon: The Daily Mail and The Gazette. Both learned about the shooting by hearing the police reports through the police scanner. Both then sent out reporters and photographers to the scene. They got the name of the suspect through asking a witness. The Daily Mail posted an article about the incident, but did not use the suspect's name. They observed State law, which did not totally banish printing the name, just said that a court order was mandatory to do so. The next day, the Gazette posted an article and did use the name. From this, three radio stations aired the name as well. Seeing that the information was not public knowledge, the Daily Mail went ahead and stated the name in their next edition. The Grand Jury indicted the newspapers on March 1st. o Result: Supreme court came in favor of Daily Mail. The juvenile was involved in a matter of public significance and the name was lawfully obtained. Yes, indeed there is a state interest in rehabilitating juveniles. That state interest is not sufficient to override the 1st Amendment interest in publishing the names of the juveniles involved in a matter of a public significance. West Virginia law is unconstitutional.

Time Inc v. Firestone

o What: Russell Firestone was heir to the Firestone Tire Company fortune. His Wife Mary Alice, sued him for divorce in Florida in 1964 after being married for 3 years. Russell responded to the sue because he is suing her, accusing her of abuse. He charged her with extreme cruelty and adultery. Florida had a law if a divorce was granted on grounds of adultery, whoever was the adultery cannot collect alimony. Russell wins the day; divorce was granted on behalf of Russell on grounds of what the trial court called a gross lack of domestication. Appeals court couldn't find such a grounds for a divorce in Florida law and changed grounds to extreme cruelty. Alice was granted alimony of $3,000 a month seeing as the court found no evidence of adultery. Time Magazine reported in a tiny article that Firestone had secured his divorce on grounds of adultery. This brief Time Magazine article failed to report that the court ordered Russell to pay Alice $3000 a month on alimony, and on Florida law court couldn't award it to anyone not found with adultery. Alice asked for a retraction and Time Magazine refused, so she sued. Trial court rewarded her $100,000 in damaged for libel. In a 2-1 State, ultimately wind up in USSC. Alice shouldn't be considered a public figure. She would have to prove actual malice. Her divorce received nation wide publicity and she had a prominent family name. Time Magazine argued she was a public figure because there was great public interest because she was a center of many televised news conferences. She also had a PR company who kept a scrapbook of all the clippings of her. o Result: Supreme court said none of the above made Mary Alice a public figure. 5-3 decision. Doesn't have to prove actual malice. Mary Alice can collect her damages. A divorce proceeding is not a sort of public controversy referred to in the Gertz case. Mere involvement in legal proceedings does not make one a public figure.

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (Privacy Case)

o What: There was County Fair in Chardon Ohio, where Zacchini was an act. WWSTV was at the fair doing coverage for a news package. When they appeared at the arena Zacchini told them not to film his act or there would be trouble. Ignoring this, they filmed his whole act and aired it on the 6:00 news. He sued them for appropriation, saying they stole his act. His argument was if people could watch his act for free at home, no one would pay to watch it in person and he would lose his income. Things bounced back and forth in the Ohio court, coming to varying conclusions. State Supreme Court in Ohio said that because the act had news value the TV station could get away with it. o Result: The case went to the Supreme court, the court took the case and agreed with Zacchini, saying the TV station had appropriated his act. They violated the performers "Right of exclusive control over the publicity given to his performance" o Supreme court failed to draw any lines. Didn't say in this circumstance things are bad. Clearly they indicated if you take his whole act you overstep the bounds.

Cher v. Forum International

o What: There was a radio talk show host, Fred Robbins, who made no money in his industry. He supplemented his radio income by doing articles that he then sold to various outlets, in this case magazines. He proposed a story to US Magazine saying he wanted to interview Cher, which they agreed to. She consented to the interview as a promotional bit for her upcoming album, making sure to state that that was the specific purpose of the interview. The interview didn't go the way Cher had planned because Robbins didn't emphasize her new band. Because of this, Cher calls the magazine and tells them to not print the article or they would make trouble, so US didn't print the article. They do pay Robbins $300 for his efforts, calling this a kill fee, but Robbins decides to sell the interview elsewhere (Forum Magazine and STAR Tabloid). Both prepared articles based on Robbins' material and promoted the articles heavily, giving different promtinal aspects of why the public should read the article. Cher sued both magazines claiming her right of publicity had been violated and her name appropriated. o Result: Trial court rewarded her $600,000 in damages. When it goes to appeals they clear STAR magazine, but upheld some damaged against Forum Magazine. What STAR had done was not great enough to overcome the news value of the story, but Forum misrepresented the exclusive nature of the interview and they indicated that she endorsed the magazine. Called this exploited appropriation of the publicity value of Cher's name.

Galella v. Onassis (Privacy Case)

o Who: Galella made a living by shooting pictures of rich and famous and selling them to magazines. Had a fascination with president Kennedy's widow. o What: He bribed doorman to get close to Jackie. Once he bumped into her shopping cart, to get surprised expressions on her face, barged in on her kids' classrooms and practices, even to the point where once when they were swimming he almost ran over them with power boats. This case is based off of one incident of Galella bumping into Jackie's son with a shopping cart in Central Park to get a picture of surprise. Security jumps him and he sues for false arrest, claiming his 1st Amendment right. Onassis states that he has been harassing her, and the court originally issues an order saying he has to stay 100 yards away from anyone in the family, but he negotiates it down to 25 yards. o Result: In appeals court, they say the 1st Amendment doesn't license Galella to trespass inside private building, such as the children's schools, lobbies or restaurants, nor does the 1st Amendment command that Galella be permitted to monitor the family. Finally, the judge says there's no constitutional right to assault, harass, or distress public figures.

Paulsen v. fcc

paulsen was a popular comedian appear bc of popularity disney casted him in a major role in mouse factory. Paulsen was running for president as well. he gets extra time but other candidates dont. seeming to be unfair. ALL CANDIDATES GET EQUAL TIME DURING ELECTION

US v. times mirror co

when the government filed its [274 F.Supp. 609] complaint in a civil action alleging that the acquisition on June 25, 1964, by The Times Mirror Company of all the shares of stock of The Sun Company for $15,000,000 violates the antitrust laws of the United States. The government challenges the acquisition by the publisher of the largest daily newspaper in Southern California (the Los Angeles Times) of the largest independent daily newspaper publisher in Southern California (The Sun Company). It contends that Times Mirror's acquisition and ownership of the stock of The Sun Company constitutes an unlawful control and combination which unreasonably restrains interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 11, and that the effect of the acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.2

Acts of 1909 and 1976

• 1909- Grants copyright protection to originally published works. This act granted protection for a work for a period of 28 years. The Act grants the author a right to renew the protection for another 28 years. This Act also provides for compulsory mechanical license to allow anyone to make a mechanical reproduction of a musical composition without the consent of the copyright owner. • 1976- Rights to the copyright holder include: the right to reproduce (copy), the right to create derivative works of the original work, the right to sell, lease, or rent copies of the work to the public, the right to perform the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, motion picture, or other audiovisual work), and the right to display the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, motion picture, or other audiovisual work)

When was the Freedom of Information Act first passed by Congress?

• 1966

DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)

• 1990. Bans software and hardware that facilitates circumventing copyright protection technology, with certain exceptions. Protects ISPs and video-sharing sites by shielding them from copyright infringement claims if an ISP removes material that a copyright holder tells the website is posted without permission (takedown notice). • Provisions: • Anti privacy protection preserved • Code cracking devices forbidden • Encryption research exempt • Rules for non profit libraries, archives, and schools are flexible • Service providers are absolved • Webcasters pay licensing fees for music

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily- 1970

• A 1978 Supreme Court decision holding that a proper search warrant could be applied to a newspaper as well as to anyone else without necessarily violating the First Amendment rights to freedom of the press.

The qualified First Amendment reporter's privilege, allowing a reporter to refuse to reveal information in a trial, is based on

• A Supreme Court decision in a case requiring reporters to reveal information before grand juries

A contempt of court citation can result in

• A jail sentence or fine

Fair Use

• A test courts use to determine whether using another's copyrighted material without permission is fair or an infringement.

Damages for infringement

• Actual, Profit, Statutory

Fourteenth Amendment

• Addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.

Comparative advertising

• Advertising where "the advertised brand is explicitly compared with one or more competing brands and the competing brands and the comparison is oblivious to the audience."

The United States

• Agreed in the late 20th century to join the Berne Convention

Federal laws and court rulings

• Allow making copies of television programs and recordings for an individuals personal use

A police officer comes into your newsroom with a valid search warrant. The warrant, issued by a judge, says the officer can search your desk and your computer files. You should

• Allow the officer to search your desk and computer files

Under the Freedom of Information Act

• An agency may release a document that is covered by an exemption

Fair use is

• An exception that is part of the copyright law meant to allow society to learn about and comment upon copyrighted works

The U.S. Supreme Court found that search warrants served on journalists

• Are legal and must be obeyed

To meet the legal standard for impartiality, a potential juror must

• Be free of a fixed opinion of the defendants guilt or innocence

In Gannett v. DePasquale, the Supreme Court held that pretrial activities that are an integral part of the trial process are

• Closed because they are not mentioned in the text of the Sixth Amendment

Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court

• Closes its proceedings to cameras

Which of the following are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act?

• Congress and federal courts

"Usual" methods for ensuring an impartial jury (Sheppard)

• Continuance- hold off trial until media subsides (speedy and public trial may not be best route to justice) • Change of venue- can move to another place • Voire Dire- judges should engage in rigorous voir dire, need to make sure they are impartial jurors • Judge can restrict number of reporters in courtroom • Sequester the jury • Contempt of power to participants • Preliminary trial can be held without media Branzburg 3-part test

Securing a copyright

• Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it exists in some physical form, or "fixed" in a copy or phone record for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm.

Judges may punish actions that directly and intentionally interfere with the proceedings of the court with

• Criminal contempt citations • Civil contempt citations

Registration & deposit

• Deposit-legal requirement that a person or group submit copies of their publications to a repository, usually a library.

Open meetings

• Different states have different laws

Open records

• Documents in the possession of a governmental entity that are supposed to be made available to members of the public on request. Each of the fifty states has it's own set of laws governing which documents are considered public.

In a Freedom of Information Act case involving a request submitted by The New York Times to NASA, the Times wanted the cockpit audio tapes from the Challenger accident. NASA refused and won the case based on what FOIA exemption?

• Exemption Six- Personal Privacy

Agency Record

• Exemption regarding agency records protects internal agency memoranda and information exchanged between an agency and it's attorney(s)

Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee- 1977

• Facts: 5 people tried to start union after exposed to chemicals. One died in a strange car accident, Estate sued the plutonium company, Estate subpoenaed a TV documentary producer who refused and pleaded Shield Law • Info: Who does Shield Law apply to? Federal Appeals Court says that "the press comprehends different kinds of publications which communicate to the public information an opinion" • Decision: lower court said he wasn't a journalist, so Shield Law didn't apply. Appeals court said press applies to different type of journalists, lower court needed to apply the Branzburg test because he was a journalist.

Roy Export Co. v. CBS- 1982

• Facts: Academy awards gave Charlie Chaplin a lifetime achievement award. Man hired to put a compilation of his works together; CBS wanted to use part of it; Export said no, CBS got a copy and used it. • Info: Roy sued for infringement on both statutory and common copyrights • Decision: District Court awarded compensatory and punitive damages- showing copyrighted documentary not essential to news report • Precedent: Appeals court gave U.S. 3-question test • Does the copyright material serve a high profile interest? • Is the material necessary in reporting newsworthy facts? • Can public domain material be used instead?

Universal City Studios Inc. v. Sony of Am.- 1984

• Facts: After WWII Japan had bad image. U.S. helped them rebuild, made color tv and had a device that vcould record what was on tv. U.S. companies thought it was a copyright infringement and they were stealing their property • Info: Sony said it was fair use and not infringement • Decision: Lower court sided with Sony, Appeals court says infringement on copyright, Supreme Court sided with Sony • Precedent: You cannot hold the inventor liable for user infringement. Endorsed the time shift term

Irvin v. Dowd- 1961

• Facts: Centered in Evansville, Indiana. Irvin "maddog," killed 6 people. Got arrested and news kept sensationalizing the coverage. Irvin's lawyers sought a change of venue for the case to avoid local biases, but they lost. A third of the jury was seated despite statements showing they had prejudged the defendant to be guilty. • Decision: Convicted and appealed all the way to Supreme Court, if one juror was prejudice appeal court needs to overturn the decision. Retrial found him guilty • Precedent: connection between harmful news and jurors decision • Impartial Jury

Estes v. Texas- 1965

• Facts: Estes selected as Time's Man of the Year; charged with swindling workers; so many reporters in trial, court only allowed live coverage, jurors later admitted to seeing broadcast. Estes claimed the trial to be affected by mass amounts of cameras in court room. • Info: 6th and 14th amendment violated. Banned cameras from the court room for the next four years until a way was found to make cameras less intrusive. Did not agree that cameras should be banned from courtroom all together • Decision: Jurors distracted by cameras • Precedent: Cameras could be improved and should stay in courts

Nebraska Press Association vs. Stuart- 1976

• Facts: Family of 6 killed, youngest raped. Simons would tell any reporter about his killings, judge granted gag order- NPA appealed • Info: must be clear and present danger to defendant's right to a fair trial in order for gag order to be put into place. • Decision: SC overturned appeal, • Precedent: Court rules code of ethics and 3 part Nebraska Test • Code of ethics: No mention of confession, no mention of sexual assault, can't tell anyone you're under a gag order • Nebraska 3 part test: likely to be widespread, "usual methods" won't work, prior restraint will stop the flow of prejudicial publicity

U.S. v. Nixon- 1974

• Facts: Following Watergate part of investigation found a tape machine running on Nixon's phone at all times • Info: Tapes subpoenaed but Nixon refused • Decision: Judge unanimously said executive privilege qualified • Precedent: A judge could review tape privately looking for national security issues and if there are none then he can hand them over to grand jury.

Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprise- 1985

• Facts: Gerald Ford signed contract with Harper and Roy to publish a memoir. Time entered into contract to pay 25k to get an excerpt. H&R had exclusive rights, sold pieces of it. Nation publisher prints excerpts before book was published. Tested issue of first publication rights • Info: Harper and Row & Readers Digest sued for copyright and wanted damages • Decision: District court said Nation had to pay the other half of 25k. Appeals court reversed and said it was fair use. Supreme Court reversed and distinguished case- bad tendency • Precedent: Nation did it with intent of scoping, not a fair use

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of... v. AT&T- 1979

• Facts: Government wanted to find out how investigative reporters were getting information on Nixon's Dept. of Justice by studying the listings of long distance phone calls from home and journalists office • Info: privacy and violation of 1st Amendment rights • Decision: Supreme Court acknowledged that someone has privacy until they step off their property or make a phone call- telephone company owns records • Precedent: Your phone records are not yours

Forsham v. Harris- 1980

• Facts: Harris was secretary of health education, Forsham was researcher. Gov. contracted with a research group on diabetes; diabetic wanted to look at raw data about oral medication • Info: Gov. denied request because they didn't own the data • Decision: Supreme Court rules data relongs to the researcher • Precedent: Gov. didn't own the data so it couldn't be forced to produce it

Rosemont v. Random House- 1966

• Facts: Howard Hughes (Spruce Goose); Look Magazine ran a series of articles on Hughes life, Hughes formed company (Rosemont) to buy up copyrights to stop publication; Random House preparing biography, published book with direct quotes • Info: Rosemont sues- no original research; Random House said what Hughes is doing is unconstitutional restraint against free expression • Decision: Lower Courts put injunction on Random House; appeals court overturns. Random wins • Precedent: in this case of public figures- fair use extends to commercial work and scholarly work

Pell v. Procunier- 1974

• Facts: Journalist wanted to interview a group of high-profile prisoners; Director of CA prison said journalists didn't have right to request interviews from specific inmates- lead to social power in jail • Info: sued for 1st and 14th amendment; officials argued it would undermine their authority with the prisoners • Decision: Supreme Court said media may have access to public areas and could do RANDOM interviews of inmates officials choose. • Precedent: The prison system has some rights to maintain control in the prison

U.S. v. Dickinson- 1972

• Facts: Judge Rush had a young man who wanted to kill mayor of Baton Rouge, judge ordered reporters only have his decision- two publications published everything- report appealed and judge holds in contempt. • Info: Reporters appeal prior restraint, journalists must obey judges gag orders. • Decision: First amendment didn't give them right to disobey order • Precedent: If you don't like order, appeal before publishing, don't disobey- appeal.

Chrysler Corp v. Brown- 1979

• Facts: Labor union asked government for certain information about how Chrysler Corp was hired (they had a defense contract with the Pentagon) Union about to enter into a contract with Chrysler • Info: Agency Records- wanted an exemption • Decision: Supreme Court said a 3rd party could not prevent the release of government information to an agency uner FOIA • Precedent: cannot use FOIA to stop the flow of information

Sid & Marty Krofft Tele. Pr. v. McDonald's Co.- 1977

• Facts: McDonald's ad agency talked to Kroffts about using PuffnStuff set for commercial; K's employees started to work for agency. Commercials for McDonald's looked exactly like it. • Info: Copyright of show. Lower Court awards Krofft 50k, but wanted more. McD files cross appeal. • Federal appeals court rules that McDonaldland captured look and feel of PuffnStuff- • Precedent: similar beyond coincidence. You can copyright expression but not an idea

Triangle Publications v. Knight-Ridder Newspaper- 1980

• Facts: Miami Herald came out with it's own TV guide; promoted saying it was bigger than TV Guide. Tests fair use in advertising. • Info: Miami Herald used picture and name, Triangle sued for copyright • Decision: Federal court said in this case it's acceptable. The context of truthful comparative advertising is fair use. • Precedent: Context of true and comparable; advertiser not taking the essence of work.

Sheppard v. Maxwell- 1966

• Facts: Most highly publicized criminal trials of the 20th century. Dr. Sam Sheppard found his wife brutally murdered; officials thought he did it. Convicted from confession he gave to coroner while sedated. Newspapers published names and addresses of jurors; tons of inappropriate media. • Info: not a fair trial • Decision: SC said judge did not control media, acquitted 12 yrs later. • Tril judges are responsible for ensuring that the defendants rights were not jeopardized by prejudicial press publicity. • Precedent: 7 rules to control media. "Usual Methods" 1. Judge can have continuance 2. Change in venue 3. Voir Dire 4. Limit # of reporters 5. Jury can be sequestered 6. Use contempt power on participant 7. Close preliminary hearing

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia- 1980

• Facts: Motel owner indicted for murder of hotel managers- bloody shirt was taken against his rights. Case goes back to trial multiple times, 4th time attorney asks for closed courts because of spectators. • Info: close trial on victims families rights • Decision: judge dismissed prosecution case; VA news appealed. Supreme Court said Virginia court made an error. Trials cannot be closed. U.S. had become public assembly place where businesses of government were conducted. Trials need to be open. "Right to know" criminal trials to be open

Houchins v. KQED Inc.- 1978

• Facts: NPR TV and Radio station reported suicide in a CA county jail- wanted to interview prisoners. Sheriff refused, but did allow public tours of certain part of jail (not black-dominated section where the suicide took place). • Info: Sued for access • Decision: Lower Court said they should have access, Supreme Court said press enjoys no special privileges of access beyond what's afforded to the general public

Gannett, Inc. v. DePasquale- 1979

• Facts: Police officer murdered and disappeared- 18 y.o. confessed; Defendant asks for a closed trial, DePasquale grants closed hearing and says evidence was obtained unlawfully. Attorneys asked for confession to be suppressed; presented news clipping of publicity and asked to close. Gannet Mag asked for transcript of trial, gives all reporters a card to have and read to all judges who close court, builds tension between courts and reporters • Info: closing parts of a trial. Judge says right to fair trial overrides the right of a reporter to be in court. • Decision: Judge agreed- fair trial and reporting on it. Supreme Court sided with judge on 6th amendment • Precedent: Judge can choose a preliminary trial

Chandler v. Florida- 1981

• Facts: Police officers were arrested for burglary on a popular restaurant, caught over radio committing crime. Convicted; Court allowed TV cameras as long as it's not a distraction; TV recorded testimony and closing arguments but only showed the prosecution for 2 minutes • Info: Burglars said the media was prejudiced and appealed. Ruined chance for fair trial, used Estes case as a precendent • Decision: Supreme Court said they had no authority of state courts as long as cameras don't violate the 6th or 14th amendment • Precedent: Mere presence of cameras doesn't affect anything • 47 states now adopted some kind of rules allowing cameras in the courtroom under certain conditions

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee- 1980

• Facts: Reporters Committee sued to get access to noted of conversations between Nixon and Kissinger (personal advisor) • Decision: Courts said when he was the advisor that part was exempt; Lower Courts said he had to produce the material when he was secretary of state • Precedent: The state department doesn't own them or have them so they couldn't produce them. • Two requirements to agency records: must be produced by a gov. official, and agency has to own them

Rideau v. Louisiana- 1963

• Facts: Robbed a bank and took 3 bank employees hostage; Reporter came to his jail cell and he talked freely about the crime and confessed, aired on tv twice, seen by 100,000 people • Info: SC declared that the televised confession was Rideau's trial and that further court proceedings would be pointless (Supreme Court called this a 'Kangaroo court proceeding') • Decision: Supreme Court said not a fair trial since it occurred in a jail cell and not court • Pretrial publicity • Most rehabilitated man in prison, received law degree and found religion

New York Times v. Tasini- 2001

• Facts: Tasini represents a group of authors and freelancers for the NYT; introduction of CD's allowed for multiple news bundling • Info: Authors mad because NYT making more money off their articles and not sharing • Decision: Authors need to get more of a share • Precedent: Standard freelance work- company owns the story

Branzburg v. Hayes- 1972

• Facts: Three cases all involved social fringe groups. Grand jury's subpoenaed reporters for information and to testify. All tried to refuse • Decision: Supreme Court said a reporter must honor summons and tell the court what they know- if they don't want to they can appeal it • Precedent: Three part test for courts to crack reporter's privilege • Must show reporter has hand knowledge of a crime • The reporter's knowledge is not available anywhere else • The reporter's information must be essential to the case

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court- 1984

• Facts: Trial judge closed preliminary hearing on a nurse administering litocaine; hearing was to see if there would even be a trial. • Info: Press Enterprise denied access to hearings and transcripts for "invasion of privacy" • Decision: Courts upheld; Supreme Court overturned- 90% of cases are solved without trial, preliminary hearing is often final and most important step in a criminal hearing. Has to be substantial probability of prejudice before a judge can close a preliminary hearing. • Precedent: Public should know what's going on, there must be a substantial probability of prejudice before a judge can close it • Court proceedings are presumed to be open. The presumption of openness may only be overcome by finding that closing is essential to preserve higher value. If judge wants to close they must write an essay.

A company may pick any word or symbol and have it protected by a trademark.

• False

A radio station selects stories from the local morning newspaper and reads them on the air as if the station's personnel had reported and written the stories. This is neither copyright infringement nor unfair competition.

• False

A trademark and a copyright protect the same rights.

• False

Access to court records is controlled by federal law.

• False

As irritating as paparazzi can be, courts have consistently ruled that their action are simply part of the newsgathering process and violates no laws.

• False

Aside from what the law says about reporter's privilege, the law is clear that when journalists choose to break promises of confidentiality, that action is protected by the First Amendment freedom of the press clause.

• False

Branzburg v. Hayes made it clear that reporter's privilege does exist in grand jury situations

• False

By definition, the use of hidden cameras as a newsgathering technique is intrusive and is therefore always illegal

• False

Cameras generally are excluded from all federal and state courts.

• False

Congress passed a federal shield law shortly after the Branzburg Supreme Court ruling

• False

If a journalist refuses to name confidential sources, a court may cite the reporter with violation of due process.

• False

In Richmond v. Virginia, the Supreme Court established that the right to a public trial does not exist in either the First Amendment or the common law.

• False

In Sheppard v. Maxwell, the Court said one constitutionally acceptable way to assure fair trials is to impose restraining orders on the media to prohibit coverage of the trial until a verdict is reached.

• False

In Sheppard v. Maxwell, the Supreme Court said that the responsibility to guarantee a fair trial rests primarily with the defense.

• False

Jurors are not impartial if they have any knowledge of the trial before it starts.

• False

Since 1972, no U.S. journalist has been jailed for refusing to reveal sources or other information.

• False

Synchronization rights are needed when a broadcast radio station plays current CDs over the air.

• False

The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that there is First Amendment protection for newsgathering.

• False

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Branzburg was a unanimous decision.

• False

The law that governs the recording of conversations is uniform nationwide.

• False

Using a well-known trademark in a way that disparages the mark is known as diminishment.

• False

When invited by government officials to accompany them, journalists may enter private property without the consent of the property owner or resident.

• False

Reporters access to documents and records held by governments in the United States, and to government meetings, is protected primarily by

• Federal and state statutes

Open meetings laws are often referred to as

• Freedom of Information laws

The U.S. Constitution

• Gives Congress the power to adopt copyright and patent laws

Herbert v. Lando- 1979

• Info: Herbert was a U.S. Lieutenant Colonel who claimed to have seen war crimes in Vietnam and wrote a book about them after his retirement from the military • Decision: a 60 minutes segment painted Herbert as a liar, and Herbert sued for libel. It reached the Supreme Court, which essentially ruled that he was allowed to seek a trial for alleged libel, but did not award a verdict. Eventually, the case was dismissed in New York on the grounds that he basically had no ground for trial over minor unresolved issues.

Jury sequestration

• Isolation of jurors to avoid prejudice from publicity in a sensational trial

Admonition to jury

• Judges instructions to jurors warning them to avoid potentially prejudicial communications

Kim, a journalist during the day, writes a novel at night. Kim's copyright on the novel will last

• Kim's life plus 70 more years

City police are on your public university campus investigating an attack against a student. The police tell everyone they must leave the area. You are a reporter. You stay near the police to get information for your story. The police arrest you. At your trial you

• Lose because reporters do not have a first amendment right to gather information in a public place

Roger, director of the City of Midville's Alcohol Licensing Bureau, was charged with illegally giving Mary, a Midville Gazette reporter, a list of bars under investigation for selling alcohol to minors. That violated the state law requiring that alcohol investigations be kept secret until charges are brought. The Gazette published a story based on the information Mary received. Roger was criminally charged with illegally disclosing information to Mary. He was put on trial. Mary was subpoenaed to testify at the trial. The district attorney asked Mary to tell the jury if Roger gave her information other than what was in her story. If so, such information also might violate the law. Mary refused to answer. The judge held Mary in contempt for refusing to reveal the information. Mary appeals the contempt citation. The state uses the qualified First Amendment privilege. What is the likely outcome?

• Mary will be required to testify because she has the information and it may be important in the trial.

Broadcast reporters with cameras and other recorders

• May be denied access to trials

When a journalist requests copies of documents through the Freedom of Information Act, the federal government

• May delete words or sentences if an exemption permits

The Supreme Court has held that reporters

• May not refuse to testify before grand juryies without risking being found in contempt Sharon is a reporter for the Times, a daily paper. She tells Wally that she will not reveal his name if he gives her important information about a candidate running for governor. Wally gives Sharon the information. Sharon decides the story would be better if she included Wally's name. The Times publishes Sharon's story with Wally's name included. Wally sues Sharon and the Times. Wally • Likely will win because the First Amendment does not protect journalists who break promises to sources

Abundant evidence from numerous, consistent social science studies establishes beyond a doubt that pretrial publicity

• May or may not harm a defendant's ability to receive a fair trial

The qualified First Amendment reporter's privilege against revealing sources or other information is used in

• Most federal courts and in a minority of states' courts

Change of venue

• Moving a trial to a new location

Before a work's creator may sue for copyright infringement, he or she

• Must register the works copyright

Which of the following may be protected by copyright?

• News stories published in newspapers

Fifth Amendment

• No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

First Sale

• Once a copyright owner sells a copy of a work, the new owner may possess, transfer, or dispose of that copy without the copyright owner's permission

Under federal regulations, federal agencies, such as the FBI, are able to obtain search warrants to search newsrooms

• Only to search for evidence showing a journalist committed a crime

The term "sunshine laws" refers to

• Open meetings laws

ASCAP and BMI are

• Organizations that grant licenses to use compositions

A work is copyrighted when it is

• Original • Fixed in a tangible medium • B and C above

When seating a jury, attorneys use

• Peremptory challenges to eliminate prospective jurors for no stated reason • Expert advisors to profile ideal jurors • For-cause challenges to eliminate prospective jurors whose responses to questioning suggest a prejudice relevant to the case • All of the above

FOIA exemptions

• Permit requested information to be released if the agency wants to release it

Continuance

• Postponement of a trial to a later time

The majority of federal courts

• Protect reporters from revealing information by using a qualified First Amendment privilege

Sam writes a short story. As soon as the story comes out of Sam's printer, the story is

• Protected by copyright

Privacy Protection Act of 1980

• Protects journalists from being required to turn over to law enforcement any work product and documentary materials, including sources, before it is disseminated to the public. Journalists who most need the protection of the PPA are those that are working on stories that are highly controversial or about criminal acts because the information gathered may also be useful for law enforcement.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that in general the first amendment protects

• Publication of news stories but not newsgathering

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine (Libel)

• Question: Does the 1st amendment give the media the right to fabricate quotes? And attribute them to a public figure. • What: Geoffrey Masson was fired as director of sigma frued archives. Following firing, Malcom interviewed him for an article that would appear in the New York magazine. Article presented him as ignorant and condescending. One point he was quoted for calling himself the "greatest analyst that ever lived" Malcom fabricated many of the more distasteful quotations. Masson Sued for libel. District court dismissed the case on 1st Amendment free speech grounds, because he was a public figure they said. Does the 1st amendment give the media the right to fabricate quotes? And attribute them to a public figure. Supreme Court said, no it doesn't. Court ruled constituted in the Masson case that a deliberate altercation constituted knowledge of falsity. Seems to qualify as actual malice. If the court said, it results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the true statement. Applying this test, the majority held that most of the contested passages created issues of fact for the jury as to truth or falsity. • Result: SC remanded the case and Masson Won.

Congress has said that federal records to which journalists and others have access through the Freedom of Information Act include

• Records that either are on paper or are electronic records

Privacy Act of 1974

• Requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register. Prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual from a system of records absent the written consent of the individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions.

When a jury is secluded to protect it from potential sources of prejudice, the jury is

• Sequestered

Freedom of Information Act

• Signed into law in 1966 and provides that any person has the right of access to federal agency records or information. The law carries a presumption of disclosure; the burden is on the government- not the public- to substantiate why information may not be released. Upon written request, agencies of the United States government are required to disclose those records, unless they can be lawfully withheld from disclosure under one of nine specific exemptions in the FOIA.

The federal Privacy Act says personal information in federal government files can't be released. The FOIA says personal information can be released if an agency so chooses. How is this conflict resolved?

• The FOIA takes precedence; the information may be released

To overcome a journalist's qualified privilege to withhold notes or the names of sources, the government usually has to show

• The information sought is clearly relevant

The Supreme Court has said that if a mass medium breaches a promise to keep a news source's name confidential,

• The news source may successfully sue if the reporter who promised confidentiality breaches that promise

Executive privilege

• The privilege, claimed by the president for the executive branch of the U.S. government, of withholding information in the public interest.

In Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court established that

• The public enjoys some right to open public trials

Fourth Amendment

• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In copyright law, a "bundle of sticks" refers to

• The rights a copyright holder has

In the absence of a contract saying otherwise, the copyright for a news story written by a reporter regularly employed by a television station belongs to

• The television station because the story is a work made for hire

Which statement below is most accurate with regard to what the Food Lion case says about the newsgathering technique of using hidden cameras?

• The use of hidden cameras is not necessarily illegal

City, county and state governments are available to reporters

• Through various state open records laws

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling suggests that a journalist may legally broadcast an anonymously provided recording of a conversation even if the recording was made illegally.

• True

A majority of states have shield laws

• True

Aside from shield laws, some state courts have ruled that reporter's privilege is embedded in that state's constitution.

• True

Fanciful marks are the most distinctive of the trademark categories.

• True

Maryland passed the nation's first shield law.

• True

Most U.S. Courts of Appeal have recognized that a reporter's privilege exists

• True

Plaintiffs' claims of fraud or misrepresentation are unlikely to succeed when brought against individuals clearly identifying themselves as journalists.

• True

Sound recording is the copyright law's word for the words and/or music embedded in a phonorecord.

• True

The 1976 Copyright Act protects unpublished and published works.

• True

The 1976 Copyright Act says using a copyright notice—e.g., © 2014 Jan Jones—is not required to have copyright protection.

• True

The Food Lion case revolved around undercover journalists investigating various practices in grocery stores.

• True

The Sixth Amendment protects criminal defendants' rights to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury of his or her peers.

• True

The Supreme Court has said presumptively open trial proceedings may be closed if judges show closure is limited and a necessary last resort to protect a compelling interest.

• True

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that companies enabling people to download copyrighted music from the Internet likely are violating federal copyright laws.

• True

The doctrine of generally applicable laws significantly pertains to the area of newsgathering

• True

The fair use factor usually carrying the most weight is the impact of the unauthorized use on the market for the copyrighted work.

• True

The federal trademark law is known as the Lanham Act.

• True

The wording of the Freedom of Information Act allows federal agencies significant flexibility in determining whether a record should be disclosed.

• True

Trademark law protects Internet domain names.

• True

When a court orders a new venire, it calls a new pool of potential jurors from another county.

• True

Infringement

• Use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works.

In states that have adopted shield laws, a judge may

• Use only the state's shield law to determine if a reporter will be required to reveal information

Courts use the experience and logic test to determine whether

• Whether a court proceeding should be open to the public

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

•A journalism class submitted their newspaper to the Principle of the school, but he removed two pages from the newspaper that contained an article on teenage pregnancy and the impact of divorces on children, saying some uncomplimentary comments about one girl's father •School said that they acted from the privacy of others and on editorial balance •Lower level courts went back and forth •The SC sided with the school •The court said it was part of the curriculum since it was a journalism class, therefore it is owned by the school and could do what the school wanted •It was not an open forum, where anyone could contribute •College newspapers for this reason, are usually independent so they can say what they want •For example, the Daily Toreador is independent from Tech

US v. Progressive Inc (1979)

•A lawsuit brought against The Progressive magazine by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in 1979. •A temporary injunction was granted against The Progressive to prevent the publication of an article by activist Howard Morland that purported to reveal the "secret" of the hydrogen bomb. •Though the information had been compiled from publicly available sources, the DOE claimed that it fell under the "born secret" clause of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. •Although the case was filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, the judge there recused himself as a friend of the magazine. The case was therefore brought before Judge Robert W. Warren, a judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. •Because of the sensitive nature of information at stake in the trial, two separate hearings were conducted, one in public, and the other in camera. •The defendants, Morland and the editors of The Progressive, would not accept security clearances, which would put restraints on their free speech, and so were not present at the in camera hearings. Their lawyers did obtain clearances so that they could participate, but were forbidden from conveying anything they heard there to their clients. •The article was eventually published after the government lawyers dropped their case during the appeals process, calling it moot after other information was independently published. Despite its indecisive conclusion, law students still study the case, which "could have been a law school hypothetical designed to test the limits of the presumption of unconstitutionality attached to prior restraints".

Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1981)

•At the Minnesota State Fair, the Krishna people wanted to go around asking for money •Fair said that no one can go around making a profit without a booth that they rent •Minnesota had this rule so they can regulate traffic in case of an emergency... public safety issue •The Krishna people challenged saying it violated their right of speech •Said the Minnesota met 3 test for TPM - ONE the regulation must be content neutral and apply to everyone - TWO it must serve a significant government interest, in this case public safety - THREE it must leave alternative channels for the person to express themselves, in this example they could rent a booth or set up shop out in the parking lot or outside the gate as long as they were not obstructing the traffic flow

Snepp v. US (1980)

•Can you sign away of you rights as a condition of employment? •Frank Snepp signed a contraction with the CIA when he became an agent saying if he ever wrote anything about the agency, he must submit it for review first •He wrote a book called "Decent Interval" about the way US got out of Vietnam and did not submit it for review •The CIA did not like it, so the government sued him because he violated the contract •The Supreme Court appeals, saying that CIA agents violating the contract of their obligation to submit writing for pre-publication review impairs the CIA ability to perform its statutory duties. •Had to surrender his $125,000 he earned from the book •Ruled in the CIA favor

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission (1980)

•Edison sent out little inserts about their opinion based on political issues, one promoted nuclear power •NDRC asked that the March statement include a message to counter the argument in favor of nuclear power, but they declined •The commission in February in 1977 they wrote a rule forbidding utilities companies to uses bill inserts to discuss political issues such as nuclear power •Edison challenged this on grounds of 1st and 14th Amendment •Supreme Court overturned the State's ruling •A state can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech, but not the content of the speech •A rule that tells a company what it can and cannot say is no good

Miami Herold v. Tornillo (1974)

•Florida had a state law that if you are attacking the media, you had the right to reply •Tornillo responded the Miami Herald wrote this huge letter that he was attacked about and how to resolve it •They told him to leave them alone so he sued •Said constitutional rights had been violated •County judge has no jurisdiction over federal law •Supreme Court said that the choice of what goes into the newspaper whether it is fair or not constitutes editorial process right •Government has no business getting involved in the choices that are made in what goes into print and on the air •They also nullified the Florida law that gave people the right to reply •Served notice to law makers around the country that they cannot infringe on editorial process based on fairness laws

Grosjean v. American Press (1936)

•Is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. •The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys. •The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by ruling that this right imposed those requirements upon the states as well. •About 2000 individuals that had been convicted were freed in Florida alone as a result of the Gideon decision. The decision did not directly result in Gideon being freed; instead, he received a new trial with the appointment of defense counsel at the government's expense

Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)

•Question that is addressed is: if I advertise a service that is legal in Colorado but not in Texas, do I have a right do so? •Ad in the Virginia Weekly for an abortion clinic that was operating legally in New York, but in Virginia abortion was illegal along with the advertisement of it •Bigelow, the editor, was arrested, convicted, and fined for breaking the law •Roe v. Wade Virginia didn't prosecute till after this case •Supreme Court said Virginia law was unconstitutional •Said abortion is a legal act •Speech is not stripped of the 1st Amendment protection just because it appears in an advertisement

Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party (1978)

•Skokie is a largely Jewish suburb •National Socialist Party (Nazi party in America) wanted to hold a peaceful demonstration on the steps of the town hall, protesting the integration of school while wearing Hitler's SS uniform •The Jewish community responded saying if they do that then they will conflict harm on them •City hall denied NSP to do this on the grounds that they did not obtain •Skokie gets a temporary restraining order against NSP and during this time passed 3 new ordinances against public protesting •NSP won the court case (federal appeal court case) on the grounds of free speech •Court said that a speaker who gives prior notice of his message has not compelled a confrontation who voluntary listen. Basically saying if you don't like what they are saying then just don't listen. Don't go. •Lesson is that people who are sensitive to certain things just have to turn the other way. No one is compelling you to listen. •Justice Harry Blackman a Jewish man himself said SC should hear the case to draw the line where protected speech stops (he could not get 3 other judges to agree so they wouldn't hear the case)

RAV v. City of St. Paul (1992)

•St. Paul had a city ordinance making it illegal to display symbols and objects aimed at provoking groups based on race, gender, religion, color, etc. •Several white teenage boys made a crude wooden cross made from a broken chair and burned it in an African American family's front yard •They were convicted of breaking this law, but appealed on the count of 1st Amendment rights •State Court said it was fighting words and not protected •The Supreme Court said the ordinance was unconstitutional and overturned the State's decision. Although they couldn't all agree on why they believe it is unconstitutional. •5 justices said too narrow of a law and the other 4 said it was too broad •Net result of this case is that it has been difficult for any city since this case to pass any kind of hate speech ordinances

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

•The Saturday Press •First Supreme Court case to see if the 1st Amendment prohibits censorship •Near and Gilford angered city officials because they exposed violators of prohibition (alcohol being illegal) •Critics of them said they were engaged in blackmail because they would keep their names out of the paper if they paid them •Also said a lot of ethnic slurs, etc, which angered many people •Gilford was shot •After 9 weeks of printing, the city attorney shut it down; said they could only publish the truth with good motives for justifiable ends •They appealed •The issue here is we can limit free speech in the name of comfort and an orderly society •Supreme Court hands down a 4 to 5 decision saying any act of prior restraint normally violates the 1st Amendment, however in some cases prior restraint is justified.

Thornhill v. Alabama (1940)

•United States Supreme Court case heard in 1938 and decided in 1940. •It reversed the conviction of the president of a local union for violating an Alabama statute that prohibited only labor picketing. •Thornhill was peaceably picketing his employer during an authorized strike when he was arrested and charged. • In reaching its decision, Associate Justice Frank Murphy wrote for the Supreme Court that the free speech clause protects speech about the facts and circumstances of a labor dispute. •The statute in the case prohibited all labor picketing, but Thornhill added peaceful labor picketing to the area protected by free speech.

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

•We had a small group of student in Des Moines who wore black arm bands to protects the Vietnam war and they school told them not to, but 5 students did it anyways and so the school suspended them •The Supreme said students do not shed their constitutional laws at the gates of a school •They are allowed to expressing their opinion even on controversial topic as long as they are not creating a disturbance or infringing on other rights then it is allowed