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;
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 |
|
|
73.1212 |
sponsor id
|
|
|
73.1940 |
Legally qualified candidates for public office. |
|
|
73.1941 |
Equal opportunities. |
|
|
73.1942 |
Candidate rates. |
|
|
73.1943 |
Political file. |
|
|
73.1944 |
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 |
