Legal And Ethical Cases

Front 1

Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.

Back 1

United States Supreme Court held that an ordinance prohibiting all "First Amendment activities" in the Los Angeles International Airport was facially unconstitutional due to its overbreadth.

Front 2

Papish v. University of Missouri

Back 2

Content-based, time, place and manner regulations

Front 3

Gitlow v. New York

Back 3

Doctrine of Incorporation Though the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, the defendant was properly convicted under New York's criminal anarchy law for advocating the violent overthrow of the government, through the dissemination of Communist pamphlets.

Front 4

Doctrine of Incorporation

Back 4

the Supreme Court incorporates specific rights into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Front 5

United States v. O'Brien

Back 5

A criminal prohibition against burning draft cards did not violate the First Amendment, because its effect on speech was only incidental, and it was justified by the significant government interest in maintaining an efficient and effective military draft system. First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.

Front 6

Texas v. Johnson

Back 6

statute that criminalizes the desecration of the American flag violates the First Amendment. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Front 7

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston

Back 7

The Court ruled that private organizations, even if they were planning on and had permits for a public demonstration, were permitted to exclude groups if those groups presented a message contrary to the one the organizing group wanted to convey. More specific to the case, however, the Court found that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be included in their demonstration, even if such a law had been written with the intent of preventing discrimination.

Front 8

Cohen v. California

Back 8

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. Court of Appeal of California reversed.

Front 9

Near v. Minnesota

Back 9

A Minnesota law that imposed permanent injunctions against the publication of newspapers with "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" content violated the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth. Minnesota Supreme Court reversed.

Front 10

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Back 10

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.

http://tinyurl.com/ajeff

Front 11

Grosjean v. American Press Corp

Back 11

That a state law imposing an advertising sales tax on large-circulation newspapers violates the principle of freedom of the press.

Front 12

Minneapolis Star v. Minn. Comm. of Rev.

Back 12

The Court held that while the First Amendment did not prohibit all regulation of the press, Minnesota had "created a special tax that applie[d] only to certain publications protected by the First Amendment."

Front 13

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

Back 13

The First Amendment permits states to formulate their own standards of libel for defamatory statements made about private figures, as long as liability is not imposed without fault. Seventh Circuit reversed.

Front 14

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

Back 14

Libel damages may be recoverable (in this instance against a news organization) if the injured party is a non-public official; but claimants must demonstrate a reckless lack of professional standards on the part of the organization in examining allegations for reasonable credibility.

Front 15

Neutral reportage

Back 15

Neutral reportage is a common law defense against libel and defamation law suits usually involving the media and journalists. It is a limited exception to the common law rule that one who repeats a defamatory statement is just as guilty as the first person who published it. To be considered neutral reportage the statements must meet certain conditions.

* The statements are newsworthy and about a public matter.
* The statements are made by a responsible or prominent source
* The statements are about a public official or public figure
* The statements are repeated accurately and neutrally

Using this defense a defendant can claim that they are not implying the offending statement is true but simply reporting in a neutral manner that the potentially libelous statements were made

Front 16

Masson v. New Yorker

Back 16

The Court ruled that the First Amendment's free expression clause could not protect the distortions in Malcolm's article. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion also explained when a direct quotation can be considered false, and therefore potentially libelous. The First Amendment limits libel suits by public figures. A report about a public figure cannot be considered "false" unless it is a gross distortion of the truth. Justice Kennedy's opinion explained that a direct quotation will qualify as such a distortion if the quoted words differ in their factual meaning from anything the public figure really said. Malcolm_s fabrication qualified as a "gross distortion," and the Court granted Masson standing to sue.

Front 17

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.

Back 17

The First Amendment does not require a separate "opinion" privilege limiting the application of state defamation laws. Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded.

Front 18

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Back 18

The creators of parodies of public figures are protected against civil liability by the First Amendment, unless the parody includes false statements of fact made in knowing or reckless disregard of the truth. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

Front 19

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.

Back 19

Product disparagement cases that involve First Amendment claims are governed by the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Front 20

Texas Beef Group v.Winfrey

Back 20

In order to collect damages for disparagement plaintiffs must prove defendant knowingly made false statements.

Front 21

U.S. v. "Providence Journal"

Back 21

The "collateral bar" rule--which requires that court orders, even those later determined to be unconstitutional, must be complied with until amended or vacated--in effect, calls for journalists either to accept almost certain conviction for contempt, or to obey the order, seek review, and forfeit, temporarily or permanently, the First Amendment rights they seek to exercise.

Front 22

O'Brien Test

Back 22

Content-Neutral Regulation of Speech: Under that test such a regulation is "sufficiently justified if it furthers an important or substantial government interest … and if the incidental restriction on alleged FIRST AMENDMENT freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."

Front 23

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.

Back 23

The First Amendment does not require a separate "opinion" privilege limiting the application of state defamation laws. Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded.

Front 24

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Back 24

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

Front 25

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

Back 25

If a state seeks to impose an injunction in violation of First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review. Absent such review, a stay must be granted.

Front 26

R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul

Back 26

The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was struck down both because it was overbroad, proscribing both "fighting words" and protected speech, and because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed.

Front 27

Virginia v. Black

Back 27

Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional because it places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that he or she did not intend the cross burning as intimidation.

Front 28

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette

Back 28

The display was private religious speech that "is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Because Capitol Square is designated as a traditional public forum, any group may express their views there, and the Board may regulate the content of the Klan's expression on the plaza only if a restriction is necessary and narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.

Front 29

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Back 29

A criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of "fighting words" does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment.

Front 30

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Back 30

A criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of "fighting words" does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment.

Front 31

Dietmann v. Time, Inc.

Back 31

the court held that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press does not include the right to invade an individual’s privacy by gaining access to his home through subterfuge and taking photographs without his consent.

Front 32

Galella v. Onassis

Back 32

a photographer was found to have harassed Jackie Onassis by constantly tailing her, jumping about to position himself for photos, bribing doormen for a chance to get closer to her, and romancing family servants to learn her schedule.

Front 33

Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.

Back 33

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Judge should have directed a verdict for respondents, since his finding of no malice in striking the punitive damages claims was based on the definition of "actual malice" established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, and thus was a determination that there was no evidence of the knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth required for liability.

Front 34

Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn

Back 34

The Court held that the Georgia statute violated the Constitution. Justice White recognized the primacy of issues of privacy and press freedom, but he also identified compelling reasons why the press should not be restricted in this case. First, the news media is an important resource for citizens which allows them to scrutinize government proceedings. The commissions and adjudication of crimes are issues relevant to the public interest.

Front 35

FLORIDA STAR v BJF

Back 35

"Where a newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order..."

Court noted that "discrete factual context[s]" may exist where the state could legally punish the publication of a rape victim's name, but the statute is overbroad and this fact situation does not meet the Daily Mail standard.

Rape Victim's Names

Front 36

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard

Back 36

Reporter must keep promises.

Front 37

Cohen v. Cowles

Back 37

was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that freedom of the press does not exempt journalists from generally applicable laws.

Dan Cohen, a Republican associated with Wheelock Whitney's 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial run, provided inculpatory information on the Democratic challenger for Lieutenant Governor, Marlene Johnson, to the Minneapolis Star Tribune in exchange for a promise that his identity as the source would not be published. Over the reporter's objections, an editor decided to publish his name. He consequently lost his job at an advertising agency. He sued Cowles Media Company who owned the newspaper.

Front 38

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia

Back 38

In Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, it severely limited the defendant's right to a closed courtroom by holding that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right of the public (including the press) to attend criminal trials.

Front 39

Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court

Back 39

Appellant newspaper publisher challenged the exclusion order, and ultimately, after the trial had resulted in the defendant's acquittal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court construed the Massachusetts statute as requiring, under all circumstances, the exclusion of the press and public during the testimony of a minor victim in a sex-offense trial.

Front 40

Houchins V. KQED

Back 40

Four dissenters found the government's reasons for restricting interviews insufficient to meet the "narrow tailoring" and "important state interest" tests that they would have employed. Four years later, in Houchins v KQED, the Court, voting 4 to 3, upheld another restrictive prison interview policy. In a concurring opinion in the case, Justice Stewart wrote that he believed the First Amendment afforded some right of press access to prisons, but did not guarantee the type of access sought by KQED in the case.

Front 41

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo

Back 41

a United States Supreme Court case that overturned a Florida state law requiring newspapers to allow equal access to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content. In effect, it reaffirmed the constitutional principle of freedom of the press (detailed in the First Amendment) and prevented state governments from controlling the content of the press.

Front 42

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

Back 42

established the doctrine that broadcast television stations (and by logical extension, radio stations) are full First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech could not be regulated absent good reason. However, because they were granted government licenses on a scarce radio spectrum, they could be regulated to preserve openness in covering news by the FCC.

Front 43

United States v. Southwestern Cable Co.

Back 43

The scope of authority held by an agency is determined by the agency's organic statute. Where Congress grants an agency the power to maintain and regulate an area guided by the "public interest, convenience, or necessity," such a grant of power can include the regulation of areas not explicitly contemplated by the organic statute, as long as they are within the scope of the purpose of the original statute. Where agency action is necessary to fulfill the agency's ultimate goal, the Court may not prohibit such action.

Front 44

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., et al.
v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.

Back 44

requires cable television systems to dedicate some of their channels to local broadcast television stations. In Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (Turner), this Court held these so called "must carry" provisions to be subject to intermediate First Amendment scrutiny under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377, whereby a content neutral regulation will be sustained if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.

Front 45

Sheppard v. Maxwell

Back 45

was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant's right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In particular, the court sought to determine whether or not defendant was denied a fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of the trial judge's failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution.

Front 46

Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

Back 46

he Court addressed the constitutionality of an order prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting certain information about Erwin Charles Simants, who was accused of murdering the Henry Kellie family in a small town in Nebraska. This case pitted the First Amendment rights of a free press against the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the prior restraint order.

Front 47

Miller v. California

Back 47

was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.

Front 48

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

Back 48

438 U.S. 726 (1978) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over "indecent" material as applied to broadcasting.

Front 49

Osborne v. Ohio

Back 49

upheld the constitutionality of laws banning the possession of child pornography against a challenge under the First Amendment. In so doing, the Court extended the holding of New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes.

Front 50

Stanley v. Georgia

Back 50

was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a personal "right to privacy" in U.S. law.

The Georgia home of Robert Eli Stanley, a suspected and previously-convicted bookmaker, was searched by police with a federal warrant to seize betting paraphernalia. They found none, but instead seized three reels of pornographic material from a desk drawer in an upstairs bedroom, and later charged Mr. Stanley with the possession of obscene materials, a crime under Georgia law.

Front 51

Knox v. U.S.

Back 51

prohibits images of "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Courts that have interpreted this section have done so broadly - "as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer."

Front 52

American Booksellers Assn. v. Hudnut

Back 52

he Supreme Court recognized harms caused to women by pornography, but concluded that the harms were outweighed by the need for free speech (Easton 1998, 607).

Front 53

New York Times v. Tasini

Back 53

The freelance writers charged copyright infringement due to the use and reuse in electronic media of articles initially licensed to be published in print form. In a decisive 7-2 ruling the Court affirmed the copyright privileges of freelance writers whose works were originally published in periodicals and then provided by the publishers to electronic databases without explicit permission of, or compensation to, the writers. As a result of the decision, plaintiffs won a compensation pool of $18 million, which has not yet been distributed.

Front 54

44 Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island

Back 54

Is Rhode Island's statute an infringement on the First Amendment right to commercial freedom of speech? If it is, can Rhode Island still pass such legislation under the Twenty-first Amendment which limits the dormant Commerce Clause by empowering the states to regulate the sale of alcohol?

Front 55

Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly

Back 55

Does the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempt portions of the Attorney General of Massachusetts' cigarette advertising regulations? Do portions of the Attorney General's regulations governing the advertising and sale of tobacco products violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes and yes.

Front 56

Bolger v. Young's Drug Products

Back 56

In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., the Supreme Court held that a statute prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptive was unconstitutional as applied to Youngs' advertisements for condoms. The decision rested on a balancing of the first amendemnt's grant of free speech with the government's interest in safeguarding an individual's privacy. The Court noted that the advertisements promoted the flow of information on contraception, and pertained to constitutionally protected private activity.

Front 57

Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,

Back 57

the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) upheld the constitutionality of an ordinance requiring a business to obtain a license before selling any items that are "designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs."

This case is now often cited for its statement that a facial challenge to a statute requires a finding that:[1]

"the law is 'invalid in toto -- and therefore incapable of any valid application.' Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 474 (1974)."

Front 58

New York Times v. Sullivan

Back 58

was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard before press reports could be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press.