Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Gitlow v. New York (1925) holding:
|
Though the 14th Amendment prohibits states from ingringing free speech, the defendant was properly convicted under NY's criminal anarchy law for advocating the violent overthrow of the government, through the dissemination of Communist pamphlets.
|
|
|
Near v. Minnesota (1931) holding:
|
The Minnesota "gag law" prohibiting Near from publishing his scandal sheet attacking local officials, was unconstitutional as applied. It constituted prior restraint and hence was invalid under the 1st Amendment.
|
|
|
Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) holding:
|
The 1st Amendment, as applied through the 14th, did NOT permit a public schol to punish a student from wearing a black arm band 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.
|
|
|
NY Times Co. vs. US (1971) holding:
|
The constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was not subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. First Amendment did protect the New York Times's right to print papers that revealed tha the US gov't ahd deliberately engaged in a manipulative PR campaign aimed at US citizens and foreign allies w/ little relation to the actual war efort or negotiations.
|
|
|
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart (1975) holding:
|
Created a three part test to examine the evidence before the trial judge when an order of prior restraint is issued. 1.) the nature and extent of pre-trail news coverage; 2.) whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pre-trail publicity; 3.) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger. Applying the test to the case, it failed, and the SC ruled that the prior restraint was unconstitutional.
|
|
|
US vs. O'Brien - holding:
|
Ruled that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Though the Court recognized that O'Brien's conduct was expressive as a protest against the Vietnam War, it considered the law justified by a significant government interest that was unrelated to the suppression of speech and was tailored towards that end.
|
