#firstisworst
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
1092621447
Popular Law sets