Coms 152 Final Exam R. Gardner

Front 1

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia

Back 1

Justices ruled that there is constitutional right to attend criminal trials. Ruled that the courtrooms are presumptively open to the public and press.

Front 2

Cameras in the Court Room

Back 2

in the States, cameras are allowed with the consent of the judge. Federal court prohibits TV cameras. However, the USSC does not allow cameras at all. More recently, the USSC began posting same-day transcripts or oral arguments to its website.

Front 3

Chandler v. Florida

Back 3

USSC rules that the unobtrusive use of television cameras in the courtroom does not deny the accused a free trial.

Front 4

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart

Back 4

Gag orders against the media intended to prevent influencing potential jurors are almost always unconstitutional.

Front 5

Qualified Privilege

Back 5

- The ability of reporters to keep sources confidential. The gov’t cannot force reporters to give up sources. …

Front 6

The 3 Part Test, (determining qualified privilege).

Back 6

The gov’t can ask a reporter to testify about confidential sources if: The 3 Part Test 1. The Relevance Test. The gov’t must “show that there is probable cause to believe that the newsman has information which is clearly relevant to a specific probably violation of the law.” 2. The Alternative Test. The gov’t must “demonstrate that the information sought cannot be obtained by alternative mean less destructive of 1st amendment rights.” 3. The Compelling interest test. The government must “demonstrate a compelling and overriding interest in the information.”

Front 7

Branzburg v. Hayes

Back 7

Determined whether or not a journalist could refuse to testify about people and crimes who were quoted in an article. Established the 3-Part Test Rule for qualified privilege.

Front 8

Shield Laws

Back 8

49 states, expect for Wyoming have some form of shield law. Feds do not offer shield laws. The scope of protections varies dramatically from state to state.

Front 9

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily-

Back 9

Supreme court ruled that “surprise searches” of newsrooms by police using a warrant did not violate journalists’ constitutional rights.

Front 10

Time, Place, and Manner.Hague v. CIO-

Back 10

- the USSC ruled that streets, parks, similar, public places, be open for “assembly, communicating, thought between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Use may be regulated by not prohibited.

Front 11

The compatible-use rule

Back 11

Asks, “Is the expression basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time?” Does not allow for “noise or diversion” near a school during school hours.

Front 12

3 Part Public Forum Rule-

Back 12

1. Quintessential public forum. Includes public parks, squares, streets, and sidewalks. 2. Public Property that the State has opened for expressive activity. Requires equal treatment of would be communicators.3. Public Property that has not by tradition or designation been a forum for public communication. “Does not guarantee access to property simple because it is owned or controlled by the government”. Examples of protected public forums: Sidewalks near residential property, company towns, privately owned shopping centers,

Front 13

The Gov’t May regulate the time, place, and manner:

Back 13

: if expressive communication as long as the restrictions are 1. Content neutral. 2. Are narrowly tailored to serve a significant gov’t interest. 3. Leave open ample alternatives for communication. // But, must always consider compatible use first.

Front 14

Speech “Plus”

Back 14

“pure speech” is a verbal traditional speech. Speech conjoined with marching is the “plus”. Speech “plus” has less protection. “Speech conjoined with action.”

Front 15

Symbolic Expression

Back 15

1. The person engaging in the symbolic action must intend to convey a meaning. 2. There must a likelihood that the audience will understand the meaning.

Front 16

Tinker v. Des Moines School District-

Back 16

Armband objecting to the Vietnam War, was ruled to be pure speech. It was a “form of expression protected by the constitution. Also, it did not disrupt the school environment.

Front 17

Texas v. Johnson

Back 17

Flag burning was ruled to be “symbolic speech”. Cannot punish expression simple because it is offensive to the majority.

Front 18

United States v. O’Brien

Back 18

O’Brien burned his draft card. His argument was that his act was symbolic speech. However, the USSC upheld conviction. You cannot destroy government issued documents.

Front 19

Freedom of speech in Schools, the Military, and Prisons// Freedom of Speech in Schools-

Back 19

1st amendment applies to public institutions. Private schools are exempt from the freedom-of-speech constraints of state and federal constitutions.

Front 20

Tinker V. Des Moines S.D.-

Back 20

.- USSC held that elementary and secondary school students had basic free-speech rights while attending school, and that authorities could only interfere to prevent disruption of the educational process

Front 21

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Back 21

Rule in favor of allowing the school to censor a school-sponsored newspaper. To justify censorship under the Hazelwood decision, school officials must prove that it serves a “valid educational purpose.”

Front 22

Teacher Speech

Back 22

Academic Expression, job related speech. Extramural speech, teachers’ non-school communication activities as members of society at large. Teachers have “academic freedom” which protects their speech in the classroom. Extramural Speech is protected if the speech is about public policy.

Front 23

Pickering Test

Back 23

Protects extramural speech. 1. A public employee’s speech earns the highest degree of protection when it concerns a public issue. 2. Must not disrupt the maintenance of job efficiency. Also, cannot disrupt the workplace. 3. The gov’t must prove that the speech interferes with gov’t operations. 4. If the gov’t employer determines that the speech will likely disrupt the workplace, and evidence backs up this claim, the employee can be punished even without actual disruption.

Front 24

CopyrightLength of Copyright protections

Back 24

Works created after 1978 are the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. However, corporations own for 75 years.

Front 25

Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation-

Back 25

Established a fair use exception to the copyright law of 1976.

Front 26

Basic Books v. Kinko’s-

Back 26

Established that publishers like Kinko’s must obtain copyright holder’s permission to include copyright material in course packs. Educational materials are not protected by fair use.

Front 27

Fair Use-

Back 27

1. Purpose and character of the use, whether for commercial or nonprofit educational purposes. 2. Nature of the copyrighted work, more protection for fiction than factual. 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the original work. 4. The effect of the use on the potential market of copyrighted work.

Front 28

MGM Studios v. Grokster-

Back 28

Ruled that companies that distribute peer-to-peer sharing software were liable for copyright infringement.

Front 29

Berne Convention

Back 29

Agreement for suing in U.S. over copyright violations that take place in Europe.

Front 30

Access FOIA (Freedom of information act)

Back 30

applies only to federal agencies. The FOIA permits ‘any person’ to request an agency record.

Front 31

Restrictions to the FOIA

Back 31

1. National Security 2. Agency personnel and practices. 3. Records covered by other federal laws. 4. Trade secrets. 5. Privileged government communication. 6. Confidential medical files. 7. Confidential law enforcement records. 8. Record concerning regulation of financial institutions. 9. Oilwell information.

Front 32

Miami Herald v. Tornillo

Back 32

Ruled that there is no constitutional right of access to the press.