Right/ Classification Purpose/Statutory Fit

Right/ Classification Purpose/Statutory Fit

RIGHT/ CLASSIFICATION PURPOSE/STATUTORY FIT 1) FUNDAMENTAL/SUSPECT = COMPELLING/NECESSARY TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF 2) INTERMEDIATE = IMPORTANT/SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED 3) MERE = LEGITIMATE/RATIONALLY RELATED CHARLOTTESVILLE, PORTLAND - ALT RIGHT MARCHING IN REVERSE (LIBERAL COLLEGE TOWNS, JEWISH CITY) FACT SPECIFIC – WHAT SAID, WHERE 1. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH STREETS OR SIDEWALKS (COSTS AND LIABILITY) ? 2. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH CAMPUS OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITY ? 3. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH CAMPUS OF PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ? ACTUALLY PRACTICE THIS – EVEN IN SMALL TOWNS. BASIC FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION: 1) CONGRESS/STATE (14 AMENDMENT) CAN VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT (NOT EMPLOYER – NFL - KAPERNICK) 2) PRIVATE = TORT, NOT FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION 3) BEWARE IF NON SPEECH ELEMENT – CAN BE PUNISHED EG SPRAY PAINT ANTI-SEMETIC ON SCHOOL WALLS 4) MANY CRAZY LAWS AND ORDINANCES IN EXISTENCE. USSC DOES NOT REPEAL – STILL ON BOOKS 5) MANY PRACTICES VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT AREN’T CHALLENGED (EG PUBLIC PROFANITY ARREST) BASIC – WHAT IS THE MEANING OF FIRST AMENDMENT ? ASSUME NO KNOWLEDGE OF CASE LAW. EVERYONE IS A FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERAL. 1) MUSIC ? RHAPSODY IN THE RAIN (1966). 2) PROCREATE, INTERCOURSE, FORNICATE, FREAKING 3) GENOCIDE ? HATE SPEECH ? INTERNET TROLLS ? 4) SNOWDEN AND THE HACKIVISTS 5) TRY TO BRIBE JUDGE ? 6) WHEN CAN GOV’T ARREST ? BIG DATA AND PROBLEMS USA TODAY - AUGUST 19, 2019 1. CONNECTICUT – TRYING TO BUY HIGH CAPACITY RIFLE MAGAZINES ON LINE AND FACEBOOK “AN INTEREST IN COMMITTING A MASS SHOOTING”. COPS FOUND 2 GUNS, AMMUNITION, BODY ARMOR AND OTHER EQUIP. 2. FLORIDA – MULTIPLE TEXTS WITH PLANS TO COMMIT A MASS SHOOTING. “LARGE CROWD FROM 3 MILES AWAY. 100 KILLS WOULD BE NICE. I HAVE A LOCATION “. NO WEAPONS FOUND. 3. OHIO – ONLINE VIDEO ID HIM AS SHOOTER AT JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER WHICH HASN’T HAPPENED. ROUNDS OF AMMO, SEMI-AUTO WEAPONS AND ANTI-SEMITIC LIT. DEFINE: OPINION ADVOCACY INCITEMENT CONSPIRACY CONDUCT EXPRESSION SPECTRUM ARE MOVIES PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT ? BOOKS ? SOLICITATION ON THE SIDEWALK – CAN GOVERNMENT STOP ? TECHNOLOGY AND NEW MEDIA ? MANY USSC CASES FOCUS ON THE NEGATIVE – WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED. LEAVES UNCLEAR WHAT IS PROTECTED. I AM IMPOSING AN ORDER. CASES ALL OVER. FREE SPEECH HISTORY: 1) MODERN DOCTRINE – 1919 BEGINNINGS; LATE 1960’S MODERN RULES - WHY MODERN CONCERN ? 2) WAR (WWII EXCEPTION) 3) COMMON LAW A. PRIOR RESTRAINT – BAN BEFORE SPEECH – FOCUS OF MILTON AND BLACKSTONE AT CL B. SEDITIOUS LIBEL - 886 (932)– CRITICIZE GOVERNMENT (CRIMINAL AT CL) – ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS OF 1798 (887; 933) THEORIES (PP 888 – 893; 935-940) LIBERAL 1) JS MILL – MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS – 889;935 2) ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN – SELF-GOVERNMENT IN A DEMOCRACY -890 – 891; 936-938. SEE 4 FUNCTIONS. POLITICAL SPEECH. 3) THOMAS I EMERSON – 891 – 892;938-939 - PERSONAL AUTONOMY 4) FRED SCHAUER – GOVERNMENTAL INCOMPETENCE CRITIQUES OF LIBERALS: 1) C. MACKINNON -- HANDOUT 2) DOES TRUTH WIN ? ISIS ? HITLER ? 3) WHY DO LIBERALS WANT ECONOMICS REGULATED BUT NOT SPEECH ? 4) PERSONAL AUTONOMY – THE END OF ALL TRADITIONAL VALUES ? MODERN PERSPECTIVE: 1. GOVERNMENT CAPACITY - FA 1 2. WHERE DOES SPEECH TAKE PLACE ? DIFFERENT PUBLIC FORUMS, NEW MEDIA. OLD PARADIGM = LEAFLET, PAPER OR SPEECH. 3. CONTENT BASED (NEUTRAL IS ABSENCE) = A. VIEWPOINT – SIDE - NEVER B. SUBJECT MATTER – ISSUE - MAYBE C. SPEAKER IDENTITY – STATUS - MAYBE REGULATION OF DIRECT SPEECH – 5 CATEGORIES //// THEN WHERE DOES SPEECH OCCUR ? //// 1. GOV’T AS PROPERTY 2. MEDIA – TYPE, OWNER – USUALLY TECHNOLOGY TRADITIONAL PUBLIC OR FORUM – STREETS, SIDEWALKS, PARKS ____________________________________________ SIDE ISSUES: 1. GOV’T AS EDUCATOR 5. FREE EXERCISE - RELIGION 2. GOV’T AS EMPLOYER 6. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 3. GOV’T AS PATRON 7. SYMBOLIC SPEECH 4. CAMPAIGN SPENDING 1791 – 1919 – EFFECTIVELY NO CASES 1919 – 1964 – NOT MUCH PROTECTION MODERN FOUNDATION – 5 CASES THAT CHANGED AMERICA (TWICE – HISTORICAL AND SUBJECT): 1. NY TIMES v SULLIVAN (1964) 2. BRANDENBURG v OHIO (1969) 3. COHEN v CALIFORNIA (1971) 4. MILLER v CALIFORNIA (1973) 5. FCC v PACIFICA (1978) NYT v SULLIVAN (1964): 1. P 979; 1008 – DISLIKE CATEGORIES 2. P 979; 1008 - FREE SPEECH THEORY 3. P 979 – 980; 1009 - ALIEN AND SEDITION ACT 4. P 980; 1009 - FREE CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT BRANDENBURG v OHIO (1969): CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM STATUTE – 931 – 932; 979 1. P 932; 980 – ADVOCACY PROTECTED UNLESS DIRECTED (INTENDED) TO INCITING/PRODUCING IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION AND LIKELY TO 2. FACT SPECIFIC 3. VIDEOTAPE COHEN v CALIFORNIA (1971): 1. P 950; 999 – STATUTE – DISTURB/OFFENSIVE – DO WE LIKE STATUTES LIKE THIS ? DIFFERENT IF JUDGE KICKS OUT OF COURTROOM ? 2. MEANING OF MESSAGE ? WHY ARE THESE SOUNDS SO OFFENSIVE ? DOES IMPACT CHANGE IF INTERCOURSE THE DRAFT; PROCREATE THE DRAFT; RESIST THE DRAFT. WORD DETERMINES ANALYSIS. 3. 952 – 953; 1000-1001 – FA THEORY. NOT EROTIC – DIFFICULT FOR WORDS TO BE OBSCENE 4. YOU ARE CLERK FOR STATE LEGISLATOR INCENSED BY THIS. SHE ASKS YOU WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT. MILLER v CALIFORNIA (1973): 1. TEST - 1015 – 1016; 1064 A. PRURIENT INTEREST AND B. PATENTLY OFFENSIVE AND C. LACKS SERIOUS ARTISTIC, ACADEMIC OR LITERARY VALUE. WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF TEST ? 2. OBSCENITY NEVER PROTECTED – DEFINITION AND ITS APPLICATION CHANGED DRAMATICALLY. PORNOGRAPHY = NON-OBSCENE BUT SEXUALLY EXPLICIT (OFFENSIVE ? VIOLENT ?) 3. OBSCENITY = BAN (LEGITIMATE PURPOSE) PORNOGRAPHY = REGULATE FCC v PACIFICA (1978): 1054; 1103 - 7 WORDS (PARA 2) 1. WHO WON ? WHAT IS THE HOLDING ? NOT OBSCENE – NOT UNPROTECTED. OFFENSIVE. DEPENDS. WHY DIDN’T COHEN CONTROL ? 2. 1055; 1104 - EACH MEDIUM UNIQUE AND IT’S OWN LAW 3. RADIO – PERVADES HOME AND ACCESSIBLE TO MINORS 4. DIFFERENT RESULT IF ANOTHER TIME OR MEDIUM 5. NO ONE ARGUING TOTAL BAN VALID – REGULATE 6. DO ANY OF YOU USE ON AIR RADIO OR TV ? GOVERNMENT REGULATING ON CONTENT CONTENT 1 – POLITICAL SPEECH (USUALLY ILLEGALITY) AND THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST: 1) ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917 (P 899;946-47): A. FALSITY WITH INTENT TO INTERFERE B. WILFULLY CAUSE OR ATTEMPT INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, MUTINY OR REFUSAL OF DUTY C. WILFULLY OBSTRUCT RECRUITING OR ENLISTMENT SCHENCK v UNITED STATES (1919 – 899;947): OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES 1) 900, 947 - DOCUMENT AND CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. 2) 901, 948 - CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST - ACT, TENDENCY AND INTENT. 3) WHAT IS SOURCE OF THE TEST ? 4) NOT ON SUCCESS – ACTUAL AUDIENCE RESPONSE ? FROHWERK v UNITED STATES (1919 – 901, 949): 1. NOT ALL SPEECH PROTECTED. CAN’T COUNSEL MURDER. SCHENCK – CAN BE CONSIRACY BY WORDS OF PERSUASION. 2. NO SPECIAL EFFORT TO REACH AUDIENCE BUT COULD BE THE SPARK (902,949). DEBS v UNITED STATES (1919 – 902, 949): 1. 902, 950 - IF PART OBSTRUCTS, NOT SAVED BY OVERALL NON-INCITING 2. 903, 950 - NATURAL TENDENCY/REASONABLY PROBABLE EFFECT AND SPECIFIC INTENT 3. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JAILED FOR SPEECH – SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS. SERVED ALMOST 2 YEARS. LETTERS BETWEEN HAND AND HOLMES (909 – 910, 957) HAND POSITION – 1. UNPROTECTED IF FALSE FACT AND SPEAKER KNEW IT WAS FALSE WHEN UTTERED 2. SPEAKER COUNSELS OR ADVISES IN LISTENER’S INTEREST OR LISTENER’S DUTY TO VIOLATE 3. HAND MORE LIBERAL – WANTS MORE SPEECH PROTECTED. CLOSER TO CONDUCT. ABRAMS v UNITED STATES (1919 – 903,951): 1. 904, 951-52 - EXCITING AND HINDER WWI HOLMES AND BRANDEIS (DISSENT): 1. 905, 953 - DEFINITION OF INTENT 2. 905 – 906, 953 – IMMINENT, IMMEDIATE. SURREPTITIOUS AND SILLY. 906 – 907, 954 FAMOUS QUOTE 3. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SPARK ? BRANDENBURG v OHIO (1969 – 931, 979): 1. 932, 980 - INCITING OR PRODUCING IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION AND LIKELY TO PRODUCE SUCH ACTION 2. LOWER COURT DIDN’T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ADVOCACY AND IMMINENCE NEEDED 3. DOUGLAS – LINE BETWEEN IDEA AND ACT 4. IMPORTANCE OF VIDEOTAPE WATTS v UNITED STATES (1969 – 972, 1050) 1. REAL THREAT v POLITICAL HYPERBOLE 2. NY TIMES – ROBUST DEBATE AND CRITICISM 3. AUDIENCE REACTION - LAUGHTER HESS v INDIANA (1973 – 934, 982) 1. “LATER OR AGAIN” – INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME – NOT IMMINENT 2. FACT DEPENDENT (NOT REALISTIC IN EMOTIONAL SETTING) NAACP v CLAIRBORNE HARDWARE (1982 – 934, 982): 1. MERE ADVOCACY OF FORCE IS PROTECTED 2. VIOLENCE IN FUTURE (“WILL BE”) 3. ACTUAL VIOLENCE SOME WEEKS LATER DOESN’T CHANGE RESULT. 4. SAME RESULT IF GRAND WIZARD (KKK) ? MODERN TEST (BRANDENBURG): 1. SUBJECTIVE - INTENT – DIRECTED TO INCITE OR PRODUCE IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION - HESS, CLAIRBORNE AND 2. OBJECTIVE - LIKELY TO PRODUCE IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION - WATTS (ACTUAL AUDIENCE REACTION), CLAIRBORNE ACADEMIC DISCUSSION – HIGHEST PROTECTION (OPINION) 3 2) HYPERBOLE ADVOCACY 3 ------------------- 1) BRANDENBURG TEST INCITEMENT 3 2) TRUE THREAT CONSPIRACY 3 CONDUCT - LOWEST PROTECTION QUESTIONS : 1. 935,983 - ANTI-ABORTION WEBSITES. TRUE THREATS. DISSENT SAYS INTIMIDATION PROTECTED. NFL PLAYER TWEETING PICTURE OF COP WITH THROAT SLASHED ? 2. 2 PEOPLE CAUGHT IN BALTIMORE WITH BOMBS AND GUNS AND MAGAZINE ON HOW TO MAKE BOMBS. MAGAZINE ILLEGAL ? 937, 985 – FEDERAL BOMB INSTRUCTION STATUTE. 3. TERRORISTS WATCH LIST - HOW SOON CAN YOU ARREST ? GLORIFICATION OF TERRORISTS ? MATERIAL SUPPORT – 938, 986. HOLDER – CAN’T SAY $$$ FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES. CONTENT 2 – FIGHTING WORDS CANTWELL v CONNECTICUT (1942 – 943, 991) 1. BREACH OF PEACE COMMON LAW VAGUE 2. NO C AND P DANGER OF RIOT – D LEFT 3. RIGHT TO BE ON STREET – WHY ? 4. 943, 992 - DEFINITION OF FIGHTING WORDS 5. DIFFERENT IF PROFANE, INDECENT, ABUSIVE DIRECTED TO PERSON. BUT MESSAGE CAN’T BE PUNISHED. CHAPLINSKY v NEW HAMPSHIRE (1942 – 938, 987) – 1. 938, 987 - STATUTE 2. 939, 987-88 - FIGHTING WORDS DEFINED 3. 939, 987 – CATEGORIZATION – NO ESSENTIAL PART OF EXPOSITION OF IDEAS. DOMINATED UNTIL 1964. COHEN v CALIFORNIA (1971 – 950, 999) 950, 999 – STATUTE – DISTURBING BY OFFENSIVE CALIFORNIA’S ARGUMENTS: 1. CONDUCT 2. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER 3. COURTROOM IS A SPECIAL PLACE 4. OBSCENE 5. FIGHTING WORDS – 951 – 952, 1000 6. INTRUDE ON UNWILLING 7. BAN THIS WORD HARLAN : 1. 951, 999 – THIS IS ON WORDS, SPEECH – NOT CONDUCT, NOT REGULATION. MESSAGE PROTECTED 2. NOT C AND P DANGER – NOT INCITING 3. NOT SPECIFIC STATUTE COURT DIGNITY 4. 951, 1000 - NOT OBSCENE – NOT EROTIC – WORDS 5.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    114 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us