DOCSLIB.ORG

Ap Government Chapter 16: First Amendment Freedoms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ap Government Chapter 16: First Amendment Freedoms AP GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 16: FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS The Constitution lays down the fundamental principles of a free society: freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. RIGHTS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION Writ of Habeas Corpus- “produce the body”- the writ is a court order directing any official having a person in custody to produce the prisoner in court and explain why the prisoner is being held. The Writ was merely a judicial inquiry to determine whether a person in custody was being held as the result of the action of a court with proper jurisdiction. IF a judge finds a petitioner is detained unlawfully, the judge may order the person’s immediate release. The Supreme Court and Congress have severely restricted the habeas corpus jurisdiction of federal judges. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricts the number of times a person may be granted a habeas corpus review, stops appeals for most habeas petitions at the level of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and calls for deference by federal judges to the decisions of state judges unless they are clearly “unreasonable.” Ex Post Facto Law- retroactive criminal law that makes a particular act a crime that was not a crime when an individual committed it, increasing punishment for a crime after the crime was committed. Bills of Attainder- are legislative acts inflicting punishment, including deprivation of property, on named individuals or members of a specified group without a trial. Rights in the Original Constitution: 1. Habeas Corpus 2. No bills of attainder 3. No ex post facto laws. 4. No titles of nobility 5. Trial by jury in national courts 6. Protection for citizens as they move from one state to another, including the right of travel. 7. Protection against using crime of treason to restrict other activities; limitation on punishment for treason. 8. Guarantee that each state has a republican form of government. 9. No religious test oaths as a condition for holding a federal office. THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE STATES In a sense, it was the American people who drafted our basic charter of rights. The Federalists argued that the Constitution established a limited government that would not threaten individual freedoms, and therefore a bill of rights was unnecessary. Bill of Rights applies only to the National Government. The national government has generally shown less tendency to curtail civil liberties than state and local governments have. Due Process Clause- in the 5th Amendment limiting the power of the national government; states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law- by the STATES. Gitlow v. New York- 1925- the Court announced that it assumed “that freedom of speech and of the press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment from impairment by the states.” This case made it for the first time that the US Constitution protected freedom of speech from abridgment by state and local governments. Selective Incorporation- the process by which provisions of the Bill of Rights are brought within the scope of the 14th Amendment and applied to state and local governments. Today the 14th Amendment imposes on the states all the provisions of the Bill of Rights except those of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the 5th Amendment provision of indictment by a grand jury, the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, and the 9th and 10th Amendments. Selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights in to the 14th Amendment is probably the most significant constitutional development since the writing of the Constitution. It has profoundly altered the relationship between the national government and the states. It made the federal courts the most Important protectors of our liberties. The New Judicial Federalism contend that the US Constitution should set minimum but not maximum standards to protect our rights. Key Concepts: Civil Liberties- the freedoms of all persons that are constitutionally protected against governmental restraint; the freedoms of conscience, religion, and expression which are secured by the 1st Amendment. Protected by due process and equal protection clauses of 5th and 14th Amendments. Civil Rights- the constitutional rights of all persons, not just citizens, to due process and the equal protection of the laws; the constitutional right not to be discriminated against by governments because of race, ethnic background, religion, or gender. Protected by due process and equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Rights of Persons Accused of Crimes- the rights of all persons, guilty as well as innocent, to protection from abusive use by the government of the power to prosecute and punish persons accused of violating criminal laws. Secured by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments. Political Rights- the rights of citizens to participate in the process of governance flowing from the right to vote. Secured by the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd Amendments. Legal Privileges- privileges granted by governments to which we have no constitutional right and which may be subject to conditions or restrictions ex. Driver’s license. Once such privileges are granted, we may have a legal right to them, and they cannot be denied except for “reasonable reasons” and by appropriate procedures. Common Law- judge-made law based on the interpretation and application of legal principles- the principle of freedom of speech, for example. Civil Law- law evolved from Roman law and based on codes that are strictly applied by judges. Civil law also applies to disputes between individuals and the government that carry no criminal penalties. FREEDOM OF RELIGION The Establishment Clause Establishment Clause- clause in the first amendment that states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as forbidding governmental support to any or all religions. The establishment clause goes beyond merely separating government from religion by forbidding the establishment of a state religion. It is designed to prevent 3 evils: government sponsorship of religion, government financial support of religion, and government involvement in religious matters. Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township 1947- decision that the establishment clause creates a “wall of separation” between church and state and prohibits any law or governmental action designed to specifically benefit any religion, even if all religions are treated the same. Lemon v. Kurtzman- 1971 laid down a three part test: 1. A law must have a secular legislative purpose 2. It must neither advance nor inhibit religion 3. It must avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion.” The “Lemon” test is often used, but he justices remain divided over how much separation between government and religion is required by the first amendment. Endorsement Test- championed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor- belief that the establishment clause forbids governmental practices that a reasonable observer would view as endorsing religion, even if there is no coercion. The Court concluded that when a nativity scene was displayed in a s hopping district together with Santa’s house and other secular and religious symbols of the Christmas season, there was little danger that a reasonable person would conclude that the city was endorsing religion. But the Constitution does not permit a city government to display a nativity scene on the steps of the city hall. Nonpreferentialist Test- used by the Court’s most conservative justices- Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, it is the belief that the Constitution prohibits favoritism toward any particular religion but does not prohibit government aid to all religions. In their view, government may accommodate religious activities and even give non preferential support to religious organization so long as individuals are not legally coerced into participating in religious activities and religious activities are not singled out for favorable treatment. Strict Separation- view of the more liberal justices- Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer- the belief that even indirect aid for religion, such as scholarships or teaching materials, and aid for students attending private religious schools, crosses the line separating the government from religion. The establishment clause forbids states- including state universities, colleges and school districts- from introducing devotional exercises into the public school curriculum, including school graduations and events before football games. It is not unconstitutional for students to pray in a school building, it is unconstitutional for it to be sponsored or encouraged by public school authorities. They hold prayer before each opening of Congress- but it is considered ok because the legislators, as adults, are not “susceptible to religious indoctrination or peer pressure.” That students in school are seen to be. Vouchers and State Aid for Religious Schools A troublesome area focuses around states’ providing financial assistance to parochial and other religious schools. Tax funds may be used to construct buildings and operate educational programs at church- related schools as long as the money is not spent directly on buildings used for religious purposed or on teaching religious subjects. Government aid to students who attend religious schools is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World
    Boston College Law Review Volume 60 Issue 7 Article 6 10-30-2019 Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World Lauren E. Beausoleil Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Lauren E. Beausoleil, Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World, 60 B.C.L. Rev. 2100 (2019), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol60/iss7/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREE, HATEFUL, AND POSTED: RETHINKING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION OF HATE SPEECH IN A SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD Abstract: Speech is meant to be heard, and social media allows for exaggeration of that fact by providing a powerful means of dissemination of speech while also dis- torting one’s perception of the reach and acceptance of that speech. Engagement in online “hate speech” can interact with the unique characteristics of the Internet to influence users’ psychological processing in ways that promote violence and rein- force hateful sentiments. Because hate speech does not squarely fall within any of the categories excluded from First Amendment protection, the United States’ stance on hate speech is unique in that it protects it.
    [Show full text]
  • Exceptions to the First Amendment
    Order Code 95-815 A CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment Updated July 29, 2004 Henry Cohen Legislative Attorney American Law Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment Summary The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech. For example, the Court has decided that the First Amendment provides no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Hate Speech and the First Amendment: How the Supreme Court Should Have Decided Snyder
    Targeted Hate Speech and the First Amendment: How the Supreme Court Should Have Decided Snyder Rosalie Berger Levinson* “When the content and the inherent purpose of speech become immaterial from a legal perspective, freedom of speech may be abused in a manner which contradicts the basic principles of a free society. Speech by hate groups can be utilized to willfully inflict injury on the targets of hate, turning the freedom of speech into a defense of unjust action.”1 ABSTRACT The Supreme Court in Snyder extolled the protected status of hate speech as essential to First Amendment values, even when targeting a private funeral where it caused significant emotional harm to grieving family members. The Court in essence ruled that hate speech, no matter how offensive and intentionally hurtful, is protected if it addresses a matter of public concern in a public place. This article contends that the near-absolutist position the Court espoused in Snyder does not comport with established First Amendment jurisprudence, which acknowledges several categories of unprotected or less protected speech. Nor can the Court’s analysis be reconciled with other decisions, which recognize that in some contexts concerns for human dignity, equality, and privacy outweigh First Amendment values. A review of this jurisprudence demonstrates why virulent, outrageous hate speech that targets private individuals for the purpose of directly inflicting egregious psychological harm should not enjoy unlimited First Amendment protection when injured parties bring civil tort suits for damages. I. INTRODUCTION For the past twenty years, the Westboro Baptist Church has picketed military funerals to communicate its belief that God hates the United States for its * Professor of Law, Valparaiso University Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Murder Media—Does Media Incite Violence and Lose First Amendment Protection?
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 76 Issue 1 Symposium on the Second Amendment: Article 13 Fresh Looks October 2000 Murder Media—Does Media Incite Violence and Lose First Amendment Protection? Christopher E. Campbell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Christopher E. Campbell, Murder Media—Does Media Incite Violence and Lose First Amendment Protection?, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 637 (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/13 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. MURDER MEDIA-DOES MEDIA INCITE VIOLENCE AND LOSE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION? CHRISTOPHER E. CAMPBELL* INTRODUCTION Should we allow First Amendment protection to a publisher who "intended and had knowledge that [its] publications would be used, upon receipt, by criminals and would-be criminals to plan and execute the crime of murder for hire, in the manner set forth in the publications?"' Should First Amendment protection preclude liability where movie producers "intended to incite viewers of the film [Natural Born Killers] to begin, shortly after viewing the film, crime sprees such as the one that led to the shooting of Patsy Byers?"2 Although the defendants in these lawsuits stipulated to these facts in their motions for summary judgment, they fully expected to win their motions.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech in Social Media: an Exploration of the Problem and Its Proposed Solutions
    HATE SPEECH IN SOCIAL MEDIA: AN EXPLORATION OF THE PROBLEM AND ITS PROPOSED SOLUTIONS by CAITLIN ELIZABETH RING B.A., Clemson University, 2001 M.S., University of Denver, 2004 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Journalism and Mass Communication 2013 This dissertation entitled: Hate Speech in Social Media: An Exploration of the Problem and Its Proposed Solutions Written by Caitlin Elizabeth Ring has been approved for the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication Dr. Robert Trager Dr. Andrew Calabrese Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ABSTRACT Ring, Caitlin Elizabeth (Ph.D., Communication [Dept. of Journalism and Mass Communication]) Hate Speech in Social Media: An Exploration of the Problem and Its Proposed Solutions Dissertation directed by Professor Emeritus Robert Trager, Ph.D., J.D. Social media are rife with hate speech. A quick glance through the comments section of a racially charged YouTube video demonstrates how pervasive the problem is. Although most major social media companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter have their own policies regarding whether and what kinds of hate speech are permitted on their sites, the policies are often inconsistently applied and can be difficult for users to understand. Many of the decisions made by the content removal teams at these organizations are not nearly as speech protective as the First Amendment and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech and Parity: a Theory of Public Employee Rights
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 53 (2011-2012) Issue 6 Article 4 May 2012 Free Speech and Parity: A Theory of Public Employee Rights Randy J. Kozel [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Repository Citation Randy J. Kozel, Free Speech and Parity: A Theory of Public Employee Rights, 53 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1985 (2012), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol53/iss6/4 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr FREE SPEECH AND PARITY: A THEORY OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RIGHTS RANDY J. KOZEL* ABSTRACT More than four decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized the First Amendment rights of the public workforce. In the ensuing years the Court has embarked upon an ambitious quest to protect expressive liberties while facilitating orderly and efficient government. Yet it has never articulated an adequate theo- retical framework to guide its jurisprudence. This Article suggests a conceptual reorientation of the modern doctrine. The proposal flows naturally from the Court’s rejection of its former view that one who accepts a government job has no consti- tutional right to complain about its conditions. As a result of that rejection, the bare fact of government employment is insufficient to undermine a citizen’s right to free speech. The baseline norm is in- stead one of parity between government workers and other citizens. To justify a deviation from the default of parity, there must be a meaningful reason beyond the employment relationship itself for viewing government officials as situated differently from their peers among the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybersmut and the First Amendment: a Call for a New Obscenity Standard
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 9, Number I Winter 1996 CYBERSMUT AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: A CALL FOR A NEW OBSCENITY STANDARD Debra D. Burke" TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 88 II. CYBERSPACE: ITS GROWING PRESENCE, PROBLEMS AND PO~ ......................... 89 A. A Brief Overview of Cyberspace ..................... 89 B. Children and Cybersmut ........................... 92 C. A Global Aa'arketplace of Economically Priced Ideas ..... 94 III. THE JURISPRUDENCETHAT SHAPES THE LAW OF OBSCENITY .............................. 97 2t. An Introductory Examination ....................... 97 B. The Reason for the Distinction: A Question of Harm ............................. 101 C. A Constitutional Quirk: Obscenity and Privacy ........ 104 D. Community Standards in Cyberspace? ............... 108 IV. FEDERAL STATUTORY PROHIBITIONSON OBSCENE AND INDECENT SPEECI-f .................................. 113 A. 7an~ble Obscene Materials ....................... 113 B. Regulating Obscenity and lndeceney in Telecommunications ........................... 118 C. Applying Telecommunications Standards to Cybersmut .. 122 V. A CALL FOR THE RECONSIDERATIONOF OBSCENITY LAW ................................ 126 A. Specialized Versus Generalized Harm: * Associate Professor, Western CarolinaUniversity;LD, M.p.a~, 1982, University of Texas; B.A., 1977, University of Texas. The author wishes to admowledge with aplm~'iationthe support o f the graduate school at WCU and the staff at Hunter Lfinm-y;the research and administrativeassistance
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Born Killers" S
    University of Cincinnati College of Law University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications Faculty Articles and Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2000 Taming Terrorists but Not "Natural Born Killers" S. Elizabeth Malloy University of Cincinnati College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Malloy, S. Elizabeth, "Taming Terrorists but Not "Natural Born Killers"" (2000). Faculty Articles and Other Publications. Paper 39. http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs/39 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles and Other Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAMING TERRORISTS BUT NOT "NATURAL BORN KILLERS" by S. Elizabeth Wilborn Malloy I It may seem surprising, but there are many publications available for purchase which provide explicit instructions on how to perform acts which can only be described as criminal, and from which no social good comes.2 Not surprisingly, some of the individuals who have read these publications put the ideas contained in the material into action. The victims have decided that civil lawsuits against the publishers of this material would help deter its publication and the subsequent harm it causes. In response, the publishers have argued that the First Amendment protects them from such lawsuits.
    [Show full text]
  • Protest Heard Around the World: Why the Supreme Court's Decision in Snyder V
    California Western Law Review Volume 49 Number 1 Article 4 2012 Protest Heard around the World: Why the Supreme Court's Decision in Snyder v. Phelps Protects Too Much Speech, Challenges the Court's Historical Balance between Free Speech and State Tort Claims, and Leaves Tort Victims with Little Remedy Max David Hellman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr Recommended Citation Hellman, Max David (2012) "Protest Heard around the World: Why the Supreme Court's Decision in Snyder v. Phelps Protects Too Much Speech, Challenges the Court's Historical Balance between Free Speech and State Tort Claims, and Leaves Tort Victims with Little Remedy," California Western Law Review: Vol. 49 : No. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol49/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hellman: Protest Heard around the World: Why the Supreme Court's Decision THE PROTEST HEARD AROUND THE WORLD: WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN SNYDER V. PHELPS PROTECTS Too MUCH SPEECH, CHALLENGES THE COURT'S HISTORICAL BALANCE BETWEEN FREE SPEECH AND STATE TORT CLAIMS, AND LEAVES TORT VICTIMS WITH LITTLE REMEDY MAX DAVID HELLMAN* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 52 II. SNYDER V. PHELPS ......................................... 63 A. The ProceduralHistory ................... 63 B. The Supreme Court's Decision ........ ........... 66 1. The Majority ........................ ..... 68 2. Justice Breyer's Concurrence.................. 75 3.
    [Show full text]
  • True Threats - a More Appropriate Standard for Analyzing First Amendment Protection and Free Speech When Violence Is Perpetrated Over the Internet
    North Dakota Law Review Volume 78 Number 4 Article 4 2002 True Threats - A More Appropriate Standard for Analyzing First Amendment Protection and Free Speech When Violence Is Perpetrated over the Internet Jennifer L. Brenner Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brenner, Jennifer L. (2002) "True Threats - A More Appropriate Standard for Analyzing First Amendment Protection and Free Speech When Violence Is Perpetrated over the Internet," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 78 : No. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol78/iss4/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRUE THREATS- A MORE APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR ANALYZING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION AND FREE SPEECH WHEN VIOLENCE IS PERPETRATED OVER THE INTERNET I. INTRODUCTION The introduction of the Internet to mainstream society has brought several new and controversial issues to light.' Those issues include the illegal dissemination of pornography, 2 the fraudulent use of personal financial information, 3 workplace privacy,4 and even threats of bodily harm or death. 5 The Internet provides a place of relative anonymity. For example, it is relatively easy to post altered pictures of celebrities, publish personal information about public figures, or even incite violence on the Internet behind the veil of a false identity. Often, trained professionals cannot trace the origin of an e-mail message or a web site.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions About Flag Law
    Frequently Asked Questions About Flag Law October 7, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45945 SUMMARY R45945 Frequently Asked Questions About Flag Law October 7, 2019 The “flag code” is the federal law that sets forth guidelines for the appearance and display of the U.S. flag (“flag”) by private citizens. These guidelines specify times and conditions for display of Kenneth R. Thomas the flag, manners and methods of display, and buildings where such display should occur. The Legislative Attorney guidelines for flag display vary based on the context and occasion, and there are detailed specifications for displaying flags at “half-staff.” The flag code also specifies how to deliver the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and appropriate conduct while watching a performance of the National Anthem. Most of the flag code contains no explicit enforcement mechanisms, and relevant case law would suggest that the provisions without enforcement mechanisms are declaratory and advisory only. Efforts by states to punish verbal flag disparagement or prevent disrespectful flag display (“flag-misuse laws”) have been struck down by the Supreme Court in Street v. New York and Spence v. Washington as free speech violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Federal and many state laws also specify punishments for physical mistreatment of the U.S. flag (“flag-desecration laws”), although under Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, the Court held that application of these laws against expressive conduct violates free speech precepts. A separate issue is that federal and many state flag-misuse laws provide punishment for placing advertising images on a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Know Your Rights: Free Speech, Protests & Demonstrations In
    Know Your Rights Free Speech, Protests & Demonstrations in California An Activist’s Guide from the ACLU CONTENTS Introduction 1 Three principles to remember 2 About this guide 3 Can you say that? 4 What speech is protected Red Tape: navigating the permit process 7 Permit ordinances Challenging overbroad ordinances Speech Plus: Beyond the spoken word 10 Music and noise Leafleting, picketing and solicitation Flag desecration Sit-Ins to Handcuffs: Brushes with the law 12 Civil disobedience Your rights on arrest Limits to police power CHEAT SHEET OF TIPS AND LEGAL RESOURCES 14 Location 21 Public property Schools, universities, medical centers and houses of worship Private property endnotes 27 Snapshots in History w You Can’t Say That.... Can You? (Brandenburg v. Ohio) 5 w Delineating Free-Speech Rights (Cohen v. California) 6 w When the Nazis Came to Town (Skokie v. ACLU) 8 w Nationalists Invalidate Overbroad Ordinance (Forsyth County v. Georgia Nationalist Movement) 10 produced by the ACLU of Northern California, January 2010. w Flag-Burning as a Form of Protest (Texas v. Johnson) 11 Written by Michael Risher, Alan Schlosser, and Rachel Swain. w Limiting Police Power (ILWU v. Oakland) 20 Edited by Laura Saponara. Designed by Gigi Pandian. Printed by Inkworks Press. w Free Speech Zones Challenged (NOW v. San Diego and the RNC) 20 Photos ACLU of Southern California: cover, inside cover, 3, 13, and 26; ACLU of San Diego & w Free Speech as a State Right (Robins v. Pruneyard) 22 Imperial Counties: 30; Michael Rauner: 18; Michael Woolsey: 16. w Reasonable Time, Place and Manner Restrictions (Hill v.
    [Show full text]