Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

40 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Marbury v. Madison

Judicial Review

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

“clear and present danger” test

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

truth is best attained when allideas are free to compete in the marketplace

Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S.652 (1925)

1st Amendment binding on the states through the 14thAmendment

Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party, 373 N.E. 2d 21(Ill., 1978)

Nazi’s marching

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Burning American flag may be symbolic speech

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

Prior or previous restraints on the press violate the 1st Amendment in most cases

Farmers Educational & Co-op. Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525 (1959)

The candidate NOT the station


sponsor id


Legally qualified candidates for public office.


Equal opportunities.


Candidate rates.


Political file.


Reasonable access.

Regina v Hicklin (1868), LR 3 QB360

Judging the effect of isolated passages on the most susceptible person

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957):

defined obscenity - not aprotected form of expression and could berestricted by the states

Le Mistral, Inc. v Columbia BroadcastingSystem, 61 A.D.2d 491, 402 N.Y.S.2d 815, 3 Med.L.Rptr. 1913 (1978)

CBS cameras entered restaurant• “Expectation of privacy”

Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 1 Med.L.Rptr. 2417(9th Cir.1971)

medical quack

Wilson v. Layne, 110 F.3d 1071, 25Med.L.Rptr. 1555 (4th Cir.1997)

Police ride alongs

Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co.,154 Cal.App.3d 1040 (1984)

Slide 1 Oliver Sipple: Saved the life of President Ford. His sexual orientation became anissue

Cox Broadcasting v Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)

"highly offensive to a reasonable person"

Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)

Desperate hours

Duncan v. WJLA-TV (DC DC, 1984) 10Med.L.Rptr. 1395. P. 308

Unintentional distortion of facts

Machleder v. Diaz (U.S. DC So.NY, 1985) 12Med.L.Rptr. 1193

ambush interviews

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 279 - 80 (1964)

actual malice

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and Associated Press v.Walker, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)

public figures

I rvin v Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)

Prejudicial pre-trial publicity denies afair trial

Rideau v Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963)

Finding of prejudicial publicity inviolation of the 6th Amendment need not include specific proof of juror prejudice

Murphy v Florida, 421 U.S. 794(1975)

Qualified jurors need not be totally ignorant

Nebraska Press Association v Stuart,427 U.S. 539 (1976)

gag orders" against the press constitute a prior restraint, but MIGHTbe constitutional under extraordinarycircumstances

Gannett v DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368(1979)

6th Amendment right to a public trial belongs to the defendant and not public

Richmond Newspapers v Virginia,448 U.S. 555 (1980): (Creech pp389-390)

Affirmed a limited 1st Amendment right of the press to gather the news

Globe Newspaper Co. v. NorfolkCounty Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982): (Creech p390)

Narrowed the closure of hearings. Anysuch restriction on access to criminaltrials

Estes v Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 1965

Presence of television in the courtroom haddenied defendants fair trial rights

Chandler v Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 1981

Televising a trial does not inherently violate adefendant's fair trial rights

FTC v. Winstead Hosiery Co., 258U.S. 483 (1922

Upheld FTC’s authority to regulate exaggerated advertising claims

FTC v Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643(1931):

Protection of consumers outside thecontext of unfair competition was beyond the power of the FTC

Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942)

advertising served no important social function

Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 421U.S. 809 (1975)

1st amend protection for advertising

Capital Cities Cable v. Crisp (U.S. Sup.Ct.,1984) 10 Med.L.Rprt, 1873

Oklahoma tried to restrict cable liquor ads.SCOTUS said States may restrict broadcastliquor ads, not cable