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;
45 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Schenck v. United States
|
The particular provision of the Espionage Act punished conduct. Justice Holmes’ clear and present danger test dealt with the probable effect of the speech. It is a kind of heightened scrutiny, above rational basis, applied to public actions.
|
|
|
Abrams v. United States
|
The particular provision of the Espionage Act punished “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language.” The focus is on pure speech, but the statute is overbroad and vague.
|
|
|
Gitlow v. New York
|
The Court was of the view that it's perfectly free, in the absence of a statute, to determine whether certain speech or conduct poses a clear and present danger. BUT if there is a state statute, as there is here, the Court will take a very deferential approach to it and apply the rational basis test. After Gitlow, the right to free speech is not a fundamental right and does not trigger review any higher than rational basis.
|
|
|
Dennis v. United States
|
The Smith Act made it a criminal act to advocate the overthrow of the government by violent means. The Court articulated the clear and present danger test as follows: “In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the ‘evil,’ discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.” STILL GOOD LAW.
|
|
|
Brandenburg v. Ohio
|
There must be (1) direct incitement (2) to Imminent lawless action (3) that is likely to occur. Though the cases and test are different, the Court did not overturn Dennis here. TEST COURT STILL USES.
|
|
|
De Jonge v. Oregon
|
The Oregon legislature passed a criminal syndicalism statute that provided that a mere group meeting was a violation of the statute. The Court, moving away from Gitlow, held that our role is not to apply the rational basis test. Not all meetings are violations; convictions can only be upheld if the particular meeting in which the defendant participated posed the requisite clear and present danger. The Court applied a more strict standard of scrutiny.
|
|
|
Near v. Minnesota
|
The gag law authorizing injunctions for periodicals publishing certain articles was declared an unconstitutional prior restraint. Any system of prior restraint bears a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.
|
|
|
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
|
The provisions prohibiting anyone from providing support or resources to terrorist organizations was not unconstitutionally vague; they were sufficiently descriptive.
|
|
|
Bartnicki v. Vopper
|
The press was not liable for disseminating the tape because it did not participate in intercepting and recording the conversation and the tape concerned a matter of public importance.
|
|
|
Gertz v. Welch
|
There is a difference between public and private figures. Public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence resolution of the issues involved. The attorney here was not a public figure.
|
|
|
Rosenblatt v. Baer
|
Public officials are those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for the control of governmental affairs and hold positions of such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the people who hold them.
|
|
|
Miller v. California
|
Material is obscene if (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (2) it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
|
|
|
New York v. Ferber
|
Child pornography is absolutely prohibited, even if it does not pass the Miller test. The New York law was upheld.
|
|
|
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
|
The Court declared unconstitutional the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which prohibited child pornography based on actual pictures or computer generated images. The Act also prohibited depictions that appeared to be minors. Child pornography must involve actual children to be unprotected.
|
|
|
United States v. Williams
|
The statute here got around Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition by focusing on the chain of distribution and the "pandering" of child pornography. It was upheld despite outlawing computer generated images.
|
|
|
Ashcroft v. ACLU
|
The Court upheld the Child Online Protection Act, which required operators of commercial websites to restrict access by children to material which the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find is designed to appeal to the prurient interest.
|
|
|
Ashcroft v. ACLU II
|
The Child Online Protection Act sought to protect children from exposure to sexual material on the Internet by requiring that commercial websites offering objectionable material take actions to exclude children, such as by requiring credit cards or age verification services. The Court held that it was a content-based restriction, because it applied to sexual content over the Internet, and applied strict scrutiny. There were less restrictive alternatives.
|
|
|
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
|
The Court applied strict scrutiny because the government tried to create a new area of unprotected speech, violent videogames, outside of those already established.
|
|
|
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
|
The Court used strict scrutiny to declare unconstitutional a provision of the Cable Act regulating sexual speech. The provision required cable TV operators who provided channels primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming to either fully scramble or otherwise fully block those channels or to limit transmission to hours when children are unlikely to be viewing (between 10 P.M. and 6 A.M.). The provision is a content-based restriction on sexually explicit, though not obscene, speech.
|
|
|
American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut
|
The statute outlawed depictions of certain images of women and was impermissible viewpoint discrimination.
|
|
|
City of Houston v. Hill
|
“It shall be unlawful for any person to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty, or any person summoned to aid in making an arrest.” Strict scrutiny is used here to show that the law is substantially overbroad.
|
|
|
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
|
Fighting words, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
|
|
|
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
|
A law prohibiting pharmacists from advertising the prices of prescription drugs was declared unconstitutional. Commercial speech proposing a commercial transaction is protected.
|
|
|
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission
|
The Court declared the ban on utility advertisements unconstitutional because there were less restrictive alternatives. Commercial speech is an expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.
|
|
|
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
|
The disputed Massachusetts regulations prevented advertising tobacco products within 1,000 feet of a school or playground and required that places selling tobacco products place ads for these items at least 5 feet off the ground to avoid being at eye level for children. As for the prohibition of outdoor advertising, the Court said that the regulation failed the fourth part of the Central Hudson test because it was not narrowly tailored. The Court held that the provision requiring ads to be at least 5 feet off the ground was not substantially related to the goal of protecting children because not all children are shorter than 5 feet and those that are can still look up.
|
|
|
Schneider v. New Jersey, Town of Irvington
|
The Court declared unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited the distribution of leaflets on public property.
|
|
|
Frisby v. Schultz
|
The Court sustained an ordinance that prohibited picketing “before or about” any residence because it was content-neutral and it was narrowly tailored to protect people’s tranquility and repose in their homes.
|
|
|
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.
|
The Court upheld a court order restraining speech in a 36-foot buffer zone around an abortion clinic. The Court upheld the restriction but struck down a ban on signs in the area saving that this was unnecessary to achieve the government’s goal of protecting the operation of the facility.
|
|
|
Hill v. Colorado
|
The Court upheld a regulation on protests outside abortion clinics based on its conclusion that the restrictions on speech were content-neutral. The law was content-neutral for three reasons: (1) it is a regulation of where the speech may occur, (2) the statute makes no reference to the content of speech, and (3) the government’s interests in protecting access/privacy are unrelated to the content of the demonstrators’ speech.
|
|
|
United States v. Alvarez
|
The Court held that the Stolen Valor Act, the law criminalizing false statements about having a military medal, is unconstitutional. False statements are not, by sole reason of their falsity, unprotected by the First Amendment.
|
|
|
Rust v. Sullivan
|
Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting recipients of government funds from advocating, counseling, or referring patients for abortion do not violate the First Amendment.
|
|
|
Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez
|
The college failed to recognize the CLS as an official student organization because state law requires all student organizations to allow any student to participate regardless of their status or beliefs. But CLS required its members to attest to Jesus in writing. The college's all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student organization forum.
|
|
|
Texas v. Johnson
|
The test for symbolic speech is the O’Brien test but if there is no substantial government interest or if there is a substantial government interest but it is related to the suppression of free expression, then strict scrutiny will be applied.
|
|
|
City of Erie v. PAP's A.M.
|
The Court upheld a local ordinance prohibiting public nudity. Reaffirmed the ability of local governments to regulate sexual speech, such as nude dancing.
|
|
|
Rumsfeld v. Forum of Academic and Institutional Rights
|
The Solomon Amendment, which witholds certain federal funds from colleges and universities that restrict the access of military recruiters to students, does not violate the First Amendment because it regulates conduct, not speech. Inclusion of recruiters does not indicate endorsement and does not constitute compelled speech.
|
|
|
Everson v. Board of Education
|
Reimbursement was not made on the basis of religion. It didn’t matter where you sent your child, you were eligible for reimbursement.
|
|
|
Zorach v. Clauson
|
Students were permitted to leave school for a period of time to attend religion classes elsewhere. This is not an Establishment Clause violation because no students were compelled by the government to participate and the program was merely an accommodation, which is permissible.
|
|
|
Lemon v. Kurtzman
|
A statute providing financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools violated the Establishment Clause.
|
|
|
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
|
The Court declared unconstitutional student-delivered prayers at high school football games Prohibits government speech from endorsing religion. There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Exercise Clause protects.
|
|
|
Van Orden v. Perry
|
The Court upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument between the Texas Capitol and Supreme Court. Passive monuments are not a violation of the Establishment Clause.
|
|
|
Capital Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette
|
The Court ruled that the government should not have prevented the KKK from building a cross in a park across from the state capitol. Private religious speech in a traditional public forum available to everyone does not violate the Establishment Clause.
|
|
|
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
|
The speech (wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War) was protected absent a showing that it would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.
|
|
|
Oregon v. Smith
|
A state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes without violating the Free Exercise Clause. An individual's religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.
|
|
|
Buckley v. Valeo
|
The Court upheld a law requiring every political candidate and committee to keep records of the names/addresses of all who contributed more than $10. There is a difference between expenditures and contributions!!
|
|
|
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez
|
The funding restriction on the Legal Services Corporation, which prevents attorneys from representing clients in an attempt to amend or challenge existing welfare law, violates the First Amendment because it constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination.
|
