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;
71 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
|
Overturned eariler restrictions on corporate-funded speech about candidates.
|
|
|
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia
|
Courtrooms should remain open to the public during trials.
|
|
|
Gitlow v. New York
|
Citing the "Bad-Tendency Test" it said freedom of expression could be punished with words that are "inimical to the public welfare or tend to corrupt public moral.
|
|
|
Near v. Minnesota
|
Prepublication restraints on maliciaous, scandalous, and defamatory publications are unconstitutional.
|
|
|
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
|
Ohio unconstitutionally tried to ban a category of political speech (unsigned fliers).
|
|
|
Texas v. Johnson
|
Gregory Johnson burned a flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. The Court ruled the Texas statute prohibiting intentional desecration of the flag as unconstitutional because it punished Political Expression even though society may find the idea offensive.
|
|
|
Snyder v. Phelps
|
Picketers carried signs saying "God Hates Fags" near a soldiers funeral. Since there was no intrusion into the funeral, it was constitutional.
|
|
|
Schenck v. United States
|
First case using the Clear-and-Present-Danger Test. Schenck circulated an anti-draft flier containing "impassioned language."
|
|
|
Abrams v. United States
|
Abrams sent fliers opposing the dispatch of American troops to Russia. Even opinions we "loathe and believe to be fraught with death" should not be suppressed "unless they so imminently threaten immediate inerference with the law...that an immediate check is required to save the country."
|
|
|
Brandenburg v. Ohio
|
Brandenburg told KKK members "We're not a revengent org, but if our President, Congress, or Supreme Court continues to suppress the white race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengence taken." He then told them to meet to march on July 4th. "Mere advocacy" of an illegal action isn't unconstitutional at some distant time.
|
|
|
Dennis v. United States
|
Clear-and-Present-Danger Test against the Communist party from calling to action. The govt. need not wait to stop speech "until a catalyst is added" if a reaction is immenent.
|
|
|
Hess v. Indiana
|
Clear-and-Present-Danger Test reversed conviction of an anti-war demonstrator who shouted "We'll take to the fucking street later." For it to be illegal, his words would have had to be "intended to produce imminent disorder."
|
|
|
Yates v. United States
|
Clear-and-Present-Danger Test. A conspiracy to overthrow the government isn't an immediate danger to be punishable.
|
|
|
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
|
Fighting Words doctrine originated with this case in 1941. Chaplinsky uttered fighting words at a marshal in Rochester in NH saying he was a "goddamned racketeer and a damned Fascist."
|
|
|
Cohen v. California
|
"Fuck the Draft" on the back of Cohen's jacket in court was constitutional despite being unpopular. It wasn't a direct personal insult.
|
|
|
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
|
Robert A. Victoria burned a cross in the yard of a black family. The local ordinance making it illegal was unconstitutional Content Regulation.
|
|
|
Wisconsin v. Mitchell
|
A statute providing for higher penalties if a criminal selects victims because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation is constitutional.
|
|
|
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware
|
Charles Evers constitutionally warned blacks in Claiborne County, Mississippi, that they would have to answer to him if they traded with white merchant. Embarrassment or coercion into action is protected speech.
|
|
|
Virginia v. Black
|
True Threat to burn a cross for the intent of intimidation. But statutes can't completely prohibit all cross burning. Consistent with RAV ruling.
|
|
|
Watts v. United States
|
Vague threats, emotional hyperbole and mere advocacy are constitutionally protected speech even if it's toward the President. Vietnam opponent Robert Watts hadn't threatened the life of L.B.J. It was "pure" political speech.
|
|
|
United States v. Stevens
|
"Crush Videos" statute was Overbroad because hunting could have been interpreted into it.
|
|
|
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston
|
Veterans St. Patrck's Day parade organizers could constitutionally exclude marchers expressing gay pride.
|
|
|
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
|
Publishers don't have to print a free reply by candidates attacked by the paper.
|
|
|
International Society of Krishna Consciousness v. Lee
|
The Krishna religious org and other political/religious groups don't have a constitutional right to solicit funds in airports. Airports don't have the "principal purpose" of being public forums.
|
|
|
Rosenburger v. Rector of the University of Virginia
|
Unconstitutional Viewpoint Discrimination by U of Virginia against a religious-afiliated publication "Wide Awake."
|
|
|
Hudgens v. NLRB
|
Georgia shopping mall picketing doesn't have to be allowed because malls are privately owned.
|
|
|
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
|
Privately owened shopping malls, like airports, are not public forums. But state constitutions can require private malls to be open to free speech, like high school students opposing the UN resolution against Zionism.
|
|
|
Morison v. United States
|
Naval Intellegence employee Sam Morison sold a picture and typed summary of a secret report to the British magazine Jane's Defense Weekly. The govt. charged him with violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
|
|
|
Garcetti v. Ceballos
|
L.A. County legally demoted Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballow who wrote a memo questioning the truthfulness of a deputy sheriff's application for a search warrant.
|
|
|
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
|
Silent protest of Vietnam using Black Arm Bands. High schooler can constitutionally have freedom of expression so long as it does not disrupt school functions, isn't obscene, and doesn't violate the rights of other students.
|
|
|
Bethel District No. 403 v. Fraser
|
In a speech, Fraser said "he would go to the very end, even the climax." Schools can constitutionally suspend students when speech is pervasisve, offensive, with sexual innuendo in school context.
|
|
|
Hazelwood School District v. Kuglmeier
|
Principal of Hazelwood East High constitutionally deleted two stories about teen pregnancies and divorce from the student newspaper, Spectrum.
|
|
|
Morse v. Frederick
|
"Bong Hits for Jesus." Constitutional for school to suspend Joseph Frederick when he held this banner up on a sidewalk across from his high school as he watched the Olympic Torch parade because it was "a school event and he was promoting illegal drug use" in violation of school rules.
|
|
|
Doninger v. Niehoff
|
Burlington, Connecticut school district constitutionally punish Avery Nonninger for calling school administrators "douchebags" in a blog post.
|
|
|
New York Times v. United States
|
Pentagon Papers legally published in the New York Times and Washington Post, despite a short injunction on the Papers. Basically, the govt. didn't meet its "heavy burden" of proof for prior restraints.
|
|
|
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California
|
A California couln't be forced to include a newsletter from a consumer group that often challened PG&E in rate-making proceedings in the company's billing envelopes.
|
|
|
Cox v. New Hampshire
|
Time, Place, and Manner Regulations. Parade licenses can't be withheld depending on the message.
|
|
|
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
|
Birmingham city commissioners had the authority to deny permits for parades that were harmful to the "public welfare, morals or good order" of the community. This was unconstitutional because it basically gave them unbridled power to prohibit parades.
|
|
|
Freedman v. Maryland
|
Mayland film-licensing statute lacked protection of free expression.
|
|
|
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas
|
Unconstitutionally vague licensing scheme that classified films as "suitable for young persons" while not defining terms such as "sexual promiscuity."
|
|
|
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson
|
Motion pictures are important organs of public opinion.
|
|
|
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
|
Most important case involving 1st Amendment and broadcasting. Electromagnetic Spectrum is a scarce resource, therefore the govt. can allocate it and regulate it using the FCC to benefit the public.
|
|
|
Trinity Methodist Church South v. FRC
|
Creates distinction between broadcast and print media. A fed. appellate court ruled that the FRC's refusal to renew Shuler's license is constitutional because of his defamatory and racist broadcasts.
|
|
|
Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc.
|
First time cable system operators are entitled to 1st Amendment protection. Cable-franchising process is subject to constitutional scrutiny.
|
|
|
Reno v. ACLU
|
Internet is not as "invasive" as radio or television because it doesn't invade an individual's home unbidden. It's unlike broadcasting, which justifies diminished constitutional protection.
|
|
|
Arkansas Writers' Project v. Ragland
|
A sales tax that applied to general-interest magazines but not to religious and sports magazines was unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Leathers v. Medlock
|
Arkansas could apply a sales tax on cable tv and satellite services but exempt print media because the tax wasn't content-based.
|
|
|
Schuster v. New York State Crime Victims Board
|
Unconstitutional to require convicted criminals to deposit income from works describing their crimes. "Son of Sam" law enacted in 1977 to prevent serial killer David Berkowitz from profiting from the story of his crims while victims' families received nothing.
|
|
|
Bartnicki v. Vopper
|
A radio talk show host acted lawfully when he received a copy of a recording of a telephone conversation that was illegally recorded by someone else.
|
|
|
Florida Star v. BJF
|
police officials mistakenly gave the name of a rape victim to a reporter: the Court held that the receipt of this info by the press was lawful.
|
|
|
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.
|
If a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful info about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of that info.
|
|
|
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
|
Constitutional to prohibit protestors from camping in Lafayette Park and parks near the White House.
|
|
|
United States v. O'Brien
|
Unconstitutional to destroy or mutilate a draft card.
|
|
|
United States v. Eichman
|
A federal law protecting the American flag was unconstitutional because it was content-based because only messages of protest were punished.
|
|
|
Ladue v. Gilleo
|
The need to prevent clutter was insufficient to justify a ban on political signs on residential property.
|
|
|
United States v. Grace
|
Content-neutral case saying it was unconstitutional to ban the display of flags, banners, etc. in the U.S. Supreme Court building or its grounds.
|
|
|
Ward v. Rock Against Racism
|
New York could require Central Park performers to use sound tech they provided.
|
|
|
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of New York, Inc.
|
Utilities can include political brochures in its monthly bills.
|
|
|
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council
|
It's unconstitutional to prohibit price advertising of prescription drugs because citizens have a 1st Amendment right to receive info.
|
|
|
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association
|
Constitutional to compel beef producers to fund a generic beef marketing program because the message was controlled by the federal govt.
|
|
|
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
|
Michigan statute similar to FECA. The statute was sufficiently narrow because it prohibited corporations only from spending money from their treasuries; the statute did not bar corps from operating PACs that collect and spend money contributed from corporate management and shareholders.
|
|
|
Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC
|
Corporate issue ads could refer to candidates unless the ad was the "functional equivalent of express advocacy." (vote for or vote against)
|
|
|
Davis v. FEC
|
Contribution limits must be equal for all candidates for an office. "Millionaire's Amendment" would be unconstitutional because it would penalize the right to spend personal funds for campaign speech.
|
|
|
Randall v. Sorrell
|
Contribution limits that were "too low" would prevent candidates from amassing the resources necessary for effective campaigns, especially against incumbents.
|
|
|
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee
|
The Court forbade the state of Ohio to require disclosure of contributors to the Socialist Workers party (and eventually the Communist party too) because there was a history of government and private harassment of the party.
|
|
|
Doe v. Reed
|
The Supreme Court found that disclosure of the typical petition would not generate reprisals against signatories.
|
|
|
SpeechNow.org v. FEC
|
This 527 organization, could be required to register as a PAC and comply with roporting requirements relating to contributors and exenditures expressly advocating the election of federal candidates.
|
|
|
CBS v. FCC
|
AKA- the Carter-Mondale Presidential case. The FCC had ruled that three national television networks violated Section 312(a)(7) when they turned down requests by the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee to buy time eleven months before and election.
|
|
|
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
|
Founded on the right of citizens to receive political speech by corporations. A Massachusettes law said corps. couldn't buy ads supporting ballot props. The Boston Bank wanted to buy an ad opposing a personal income tax. The law was ruled unconstitutional, creating an almost unlimited First Amendment freedom for nonmedia corporations to spend money to support ballot propositionos and other social issues.
|
|
|
Buckley v. Valeo
|
The Court accepted the legislative purpose of contribution limits, which is to discourage political favoritism for large contributors. It distinguished contribution limits from expenditure limits. Preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of corruption were sufficiently important interests to justify contribution limits for indivduals and PACs.
|
|
|
McConnell v. FEC
|
2003 decision upholding BCRA's electioneering communication provision.
|
