click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Mass Com Exam #1
#firstisworst
Term | Definition |
---|---|
Stare Decisis | to stand by past decisions |
Crimes against the habitation | burglar / arson |
Crimes against the property | thefts / larceny |
Crimes against morality and decency | Vagrancy |
Crimes against sovereignty | tax evasion |
De novo | new trial at the appellate level |
Amicus brief | friend of the court |
en banc | All appellate judges hear the case |
Writ of Certiorari | petition to the U.S.S.C. |
5th amendment | protection against prior restraint |
6th amendment | right to a speedy trial |
14th amendment | due process of law |
William Blackstone | first judge to record his decision/did NOT believe in prior restraint |
John Peter Zenger | printed an attack on the governor of NY / he was thrown in jail Decision: 1) juries should ascertain the truth AND 2) truth is a defense |
Milton's "Aeropagetica" | truth must grapple with false statements / truth will ALWAYS be right |
Mill's "On Liberty" | truth has no chance if we silence it |
England's restrictions-Stamp Act | produced prior restraint / produced the chilling effect (no one will take part because someone was made an example of) |
Constitutional Convention | strong federal or strong state government? |
Madison vs. Hamilton | Madison=individual rights and strong central government Hamilton=strong state government |
Sedition | criticism against the form of government |
Gitlow v. New York (1925) | All states must honor constitutional guarantees (1st amen.) in the federal courts b/c of the 14th amendment. |
Absolutist-Hugo Black | Absolutely no laws. Porn, slander, libel, all protected. |
Absolutist-Prof. Meiklejohn | political speech=protected absolutely non-political speech=sometimes protected (balancing) |
Kovacs v. Cooper | Kovacs drove his loud vehicle in a neighborhood where Cooper lived. Decision: In your on home, you should expect peace. Cooper won. |
Two-tiered | some words are protected, some are not (i.e. libel, obscenity, fighting words) |
Chaplinksy v. N.H. | Chap was saying controversial things getting the crowd riled up. To save him from crowd, police arrested him. Because of this, he said offensive things, thus, police charge him. |
Schenck v. U.S. (1919) | Schenck wrote a pamphlet encouraging people to not show up for the draft, thus, he was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 (which says one may not inhibit the draft). Decision: Schenck loses. articulates the Clear and Present Danger Test. |
Abrams v. U.S. | Several students from Russia (Abrams) were charged w/ violating the Espionage Act of 1917. They wrote up pamphlets that called for an ammunition strike. Decision: Allowing different ind. w/ different views to protest is ok, as long as no C & P.D. |
Whitney v. California | Whitney is charged with violation of Calif. Syndicalism Act. She was a noteful member of the communist labor party calling for econ. rev. Decision: U.S.S.C. realized that they needed to open up the C & P.D. doctrine. |
Brandenburg v. Ohio | Brandenburg (member of the Klan) invited media to cover a speech. They said to overthrow the government. Decision: C & P.D. must be imminent, lawless action likely to succeed. This was not. |
Balancing | not allowing as much speech / heading towards restricted speech. |
Ad Hoc | "for this specific purpose" / a case not under stare decisis |
Definitional | balanced rights under certain circumstances, to be looked at in the future |
American Com. Asso v. Douds | ACA wanted to rent a building, but they had to sign a loyalty oath. ACA said that it was in violation of their 1st. amen. rights. Decision: Private property=you can make your own rules. |
Gitlow v. New York | Bad Tendency / Speech that is repressed / you need much less evidence |
Dennis v. U.S. (1952) | Dennis was a commi who was calling for the U.S. to become commi. The Smith Act of 1940 declares that you cannot advocate fascism. Decision: Dennis was convicted by violating the Smith Act, even though it had to do with Fascism, not communism. |
Yates v. U.S. | Same facts as Dennis v. U.S. / she was not convicted though. Decision: Advocacy of Action=if Roger says "go kill Alger" and you do it, then Roger is NOT PROTECTED. Advocacy of Abstract Doctrine. |
Advocacy of Abstract Doctrine | discussing communism in a group is protected / this ended the Smith Act prosecution of commi's |
Near v. Minnesota (1931) | Near said that by losing the ability to print, he had been priorly restrained. Decision: First time the courts said that all prior restraint was unconstitutional. Near won. |
Grosjean v. American Press (1936) | Grosjean taxed the bigger newspapers. Decision: Courts decided that was prior restraint. |
New York Times v. U.S. (1971) | NYT attempted to publish stories based on a secret Pentagon study on the Vietnam War (Pentagon Papers). This was the first time the US filed an injunction against a newspaper. Decision: The US gov't had not met its burden of proof to prior restrain. |
Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Minn. Commissioner of Revenue (1983) | Minn. decided to tax newspapers that used a large amount of ink. Decision: Attack on paper and ink, which is discrimination and prior restraint. |
Arkansas Writer's Project Inc. v. Ragland (1987) | Arkansas taxed general magazines, but not religious, trade or sports journals. Decision: tax was unconstitutionally discriminatory. |
Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (1971) | TV station reported name of rape victim, so the father sued the station. Decision: A state does not have the right to punish the media if the info is obtained in an open court room, which was the case. Cox won. |
Landmark Communication Inc. v. Virginia (1978) | VA pilot published name of judge being investigated. This violated state laws. Decision: VA could not punish the media for publishing truthful info about a confidential judicial inquiry. Landmark won. |
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Company (1979) | 2 newspapers id'd a 14 yr old boy who killed a classmate. Reporters got the name from witnesses. This violated a WVA statute. Decision: WVA statute was over broad b/c it singled out ONLY newspapers for punishment. |
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Company (1979) #2 | Courts did say a state can punish media for truthful info "to further a state's need of the highest order." |
U.S. v. Progressive (1979) | federal judge stopped the Progressive from publishing on article on how to build an H-bomb, even though it was public info. It violated the Atomic Energy Act. Decision: Suit was dropped after same info was published elsewhere. |
Snepp v. U.S. (1980) | He published a book that violated his CIA contract by publishing before submitting the manuscript to the CIA. Decision: Nondisclosure employment contracts are not unconstitutional. Snepp signed his life away willingly. |
Morison v. U.S. (1988) | Morison violated the Espionage Act of 1917 by passing the satellite photo of a Soviet aircraft carrier to a magazine. Decision: national security leaking is punishable. |
Florida Star V. BJF (1989) (similar to Smith v. Daily Mail)-interest of the highest order | a reporter trainee acquired B.J.F.'s name from a press release. This name was published in violation of a state statute. Decision: A media defendant cannot be punished for publishing of lawfully gained info unless the statute was drawn more narrow. |
Texas v. Johnson (1989) | Johnson burned a U.S. flag at the 1984 Rep. Nat. Convention to protest Reagan admin. Decision: burning of the flag was constitutional as a symbolic form of speech. |
Robert A. Victoria v. City of St. Paul (1992) | R.A.V. burned a cross inside the yard of the Jones's, a black couple. R.A.V. was charged under the new city ordinance (it's test run). Decision: city ordinance was unconstitutional content reg. because it was too broad, so R.A.V. won. |
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) | principal censored Kuhlmeier's article about teen pregnancies and divorce from school newspaper. Decision: high school principals can censor high school newspapers. |
Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974) | Herald refused to publish a reply to the paper's criticism of Tornillo, cand. for state leg. Decision: Print media had stronger first amendment rights that electronic media. |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) | Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibited Citizens United from advertising "Hillary: The Movie" on TV within 30 days of 2008 democratic primaries. Decision: courts ruled against prohibition. 1st amen. prohibits this. |
Prurient Interests | lustful thoughts or sexual desires |
Patently Offensive | hard-core sexual conduct |
Regina v. Hicklin (1868) | result of distribution of an immoral anti-Catholic publication under the Obscene Pub. Act of 1857. Decision: Led to the Hicklin Test. |
The Hicklin Test | Isolated Passage Effect=if there is one obscene paragraph in a work, then the whole work is obscene. Susceptible Person Standard=what if a susceptible person saw the material? |
Anthony Comstock | advocated the adoption of the 1873 Comstock Act (no porn or obscenity allowed to pass through the postal service). He was appointed to enforce this federal law. |
Roth v. U.S. & Alberts v. California (1957) | Roth was convicted with mailing an obscene book. Alberts was convicted of distribution of obscene books in California. Decision: Obscenity must be determined by The Roth Test |
The Roth Test | 1) Obscenity must be determined by the average person 2) the work "as a whole" must be deemed offensive 3) it must have no redeeming social value |
Miller v. California (1973) | Miller was convicted for conducting a mass-mailing campaign to advertise four book and a film containing sexually explicit items. Decision: Obscenity must be determined by The Miller Test |
The Miller Test | (must meet every component) 1) determined by the average person applying contemporary community standards. 2) the work as a whole appeals to prurient interests. 3) the work must be patently offensive as defined by each state 4) must lack SLAPS. |
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) | 1984 amendment to be used against obscenity and pornography. Can seize all "interests" connected to a racketeering enterprise. Nowadays it is used against drug lords and was first used on mobs. |
1968 President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography | -Ban all state laws on consumption of obscenity by consenting adults. -No link to consumption and violence. -Senate ultimately rejected report and conclusions. |
1986 Meese Commission | -A link does exist b/w violence and obscenity. -Made numerous recommendations to curtail access to obscene material (MOST WERE IGNORED). |
U.S. v. Ulysses (1934) | Customs officials tried to stop the importation of James Joyce's "Ulysses." Decision:Literary and artistic merit can be weighed against incidental obscenity. |
Ginsberg v. New York (1968) | Sam S. was convicted for selling girlie magazines to minors. These were not found to be obscene for adults. Decision: Courts est. a variable standard for obscenity-one for adults and one for kids. |
Ginzburg v. U.S. (1966) | Ralph Z.mailed a magazine with two other periodicals. His advertising emphasized the erotic nature of his publications. Decision: Ginzburg was guilty of pandering (advertising non-obscene material in an obscene way). |
New York v. Ferber (1982) | He was convicted for selling undercover police films of young boys masturbating. Decision: there is a need to protect the physical and emotional well-bing of minors. |
Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) | John Cleland's "Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" was ruled to be obscene. Decision: to be obscene, a work must be utterly w/o redeeming social value. |
Redrup v. New York (1967) | He was prosecuted for selling sexy magazines of pinups and scantily clad females, but no sexually explicit activity. Decision: statutes concerning obscene materials must be specific and narrow in scope. |
Stanley v. Georgia (1969) | He was convicted for possession of obscene films while police searched his house for evidence of illegal bookmaking. Decision: Private possession of obscene material is permissible. |
Hamling v. U.S. (1974) | Hamling was convicted by the use of expert witnesses from outside the community. Decision: Jurors may rely on their own knowledge of their community's standards, not some "expert witness" from out of town. |
Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976) | zoning ordinances were passed prohibiting adult bookstores and theaters from locating close to good places or each other. Decision: Erogenous Zones are a valid way to control obscenity. |
Reno v. ACLU (1997) Communication Decency Act (CDA)=a subsection of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) | ACLU challenged CDA as unconstitutional. Decision: The CDA was unconstitutional / communication via the internet deserves the highest level of 1st amen. protection. |
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) | Congress adopted an amendment that barred images that "appear" to depict minors performing sexual acts (even virtual kids). Decision: This was unconstitutional b/c there is no actual child. Cong. failed to prove that images and child abuse were linked |
1977-Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation | Prohibits knowingly shipping, receiving, distributing, or reproducing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexual conduct. |
1990-Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act | You need to get proof of age of actors and actresses if in a porn film. |
1996-Child Porn Protection Act | Later found unconstitiutional |
1997-Communication Decency Act (CDA) | Later found unconstitiutional |
1998-Child Online Protection Act (COPA) | Limited websites from transmitting to minors / unconstitiutional |
2001-Child's Internet Protection Act | -public libraries receiving federal funding must have porn filters. -this is constitutional |
2003 PROTECT Act | advertising you have porn |
U.S. v. Williams (2008) | Williams tried to sell photos of a 4 yr. old girl to an undercover cop. He had child porn, but not the specific photos he advertised. Decision: ruled the PROTECT Act constitutional (this was a test) |
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) | California passed a law banning selling or renting of violent video games to minors. Decision: This is unconstitutional / Can't control the content, this is the job of the parents. |