Comm 3300 Test 2

Front 1

Puffery

Back 1

Exaggerated description to sell goods and services

Front 2

Puffery

Back 2

A reasonable person would recognize this as a hyperbole because it is not intended to be taken literally

Front 3

puffery

Back 3

"world's best coffee"

Front 4

deceptive advertising

Back 4

"castor oil leads to longer engine life"

Front 5

deceptive advertising

Back 5

a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting responsibly to the consumer's material detriment

the consumer would have chosen differently but the decption

Front 6

central hudson gas & electric v. Public Service Commission

Back 6

refused to allow company include political messages in monthly bills

set forth 4 part test determining when commercial speech may or may not be regulated by the states

Front 7

prior restraint

Back 7

censorship of a message before it is communicated

Front 8

timing of government intervention

Back 8

key to identifying prior restraint?

Front 9

pentagon papers

Back 9

unauthorized publication of military papers

permitted the continued publication because the government had not met its burden of proof to show the justification for prior restraint in this case

Front 10

Near v. Minnesota

Back 10

Writer made several anti-semitic remarks in newspaper, secured court order because of its malicious content, supreme court removed it and said the gag law violated the constitution

set up the idea that prior restraint should only be used in rare cases & that the proper course of action is post facto

Front 11

Marchetti v. United States

Snepp v. United States

Back 11

federal govt. to prevent ex CIA agents from publishing books about secret work without advanced permission

court announced that secrecy agreements were indeed binding and that the 1st amendment could NOT save expression that came under valid secrecy contracts

Front 12

United States v. Progressive

Back 12

H-bomb printed in newspaper

argued national security but when more and more articles of the same type were being printed, government dropped the case

Front 13

Branzburg v. Hayes

Back 13

ruled that 1st amendment does NOT exempt reporters from "performing the citizen's normal duty of appearing and furnishing information relevant to the grand jury's task"

brought forth the 3 part test for Free Press/Fair Trial

Front 14

1. relevance

2. alternative means

3. compelling interest in the information

Back 14

3 part test under Branzburg v. Hayes when asking a reporter to testify:

Front 15

Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart

Back 15

Restricting access to the press must be supported with evidence to show it is essential

less drastic means should be used when possible

Front 16

Sheppard v. Maxwell

Back 16

Held that extensive pretrial publicity could prejudice prospective jurors and prevent the accused from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed by the 6th amendment

In response, some trial court judges began issuing restrictive orders limited media coverage and then came the Nebraska Case....

Front 17

Davis v. Massachusetts

Back 17

Cities had title to streets, parks etc. and could exercise absolute control over their use and could regulate them

Front 18

Hague v. CIO

Back 18

Public streets, sidewalks, parks and similar public places must be open for purposes of communication

could regulate the use but NOT prohibit

Front 19

Cox v. New Hampshire

Back 19

Can regulate permits for use and require fees

Front 20

"Traditional" public forum

Back 20

park or street corner

Front 21

"limited" or "designated"

Back 21

place with a more limited history of expressive activity usually only for certain groups or topics

Front 22

"closed"

Back 22

has not been open to public expression, such as a jail or military base

Front 23

1. the regulation must be content neutral

2. the regulation must serve a substantial government interest

3. the rules may not be any broader than necessary to serve the government interest

Back 23

3 rules to when you can regulate a public forum:

Front 24

1. the regulation is within the constitutional power of the government

2. it furthers an important or substantial government interest

3.the interest is unrelated to suppression of free expression

4. incidental restriction on the 1st amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of the government interest

Back 24

When Speech Plus can be regulated: 4 things

Front 25

United States v. O'Brien

Back 25

Supreme court upholds conviction of David Paul ______ , an anti war protester accused of violating a federal statute prohibiting the public destruction of draft cards

Front 26

Texas v. Johnson

Back 26

Supreme court rules that burning the american flag is a constitutionally protected form of free speech

symbolic of political expression

Front 27

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District

Back 27

Students wore black armbands to school to protest vietnam

court determines that school officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably forecast that the expression will cause a substantial disruption of school activities or interfere with the educational experience

Front 28

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

Back 28

Student publications

court ruled that school officials may exercise editorial control over content of school sponsored student publications if they do so in a way that is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns

Front 29

Turner v. Safely

Back 29

Prisoner Rights

Sets up 4 part test when considering 1st amendment and prisoners

Front 30

1. whether the regulation is rationally related to a legit and neutral govt. objective

2. whether alternative avenues remain open to inmates to exercise their free speech

3. the effect that accommodating inmate's free speech will have on other inmates and staff AND

4. whether there are obvious and easy alternatives to the reg. in question...

Back 30

What do you consider when evaluating 1st amendment and prisoners?

Front 31

Simon & Schuster v. Members of the NY state crime victims board

Back 31

supreme court invalidates the new york "son of sam" law that requires accused or convicted persons to turn over to the state proceeds from any work describing their crimes..