Media Law | Exam Iii | Cases

Front 1

Regina v. Hicklin

Back 1

The Hicklin test is a legal concept stemming from the English case R. v. Hicklin (1868), LR 3 QB 360, in English Common Law. Put simply, it states that a legislature can outlaw anything that "depraves and corrupts those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort might fall."

Front 2

Roth v. U.S./ "Memoirs..." v. Massachusetts

Back 2

redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.

Front 3

Ginsberg v. New York

Back 3

Material that is not obscene for adults may still be considered obscene towards minors and regulated

Front 4

Ginzburg v. U.S.

Back 4

“pandering” is part of forbidden obscenity acts.

Front 5

U.S. v. Blucher/U.S. v. Thomas

Back 5

constituted the mailing of obscene matter a continuing offense

Front 6

American Booksellers Assn. v. Virginia

Back 6

A 1985 amendment to a Virginia statute makes it unlawful for any person "to knowingly display for commercial purposes in a manner whereby juveniles may examine and peruse" certain visual or written sexual or sadomasochistic material that is harmful to juveniles.

Front 7

Osborne v. Ohio

Back 7

The First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography

Front 8

Miller v. California

Back 8

Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Front 9

Mishkin v. New York

Back 9

pornographic materials aimed at special interest groups are not constitutionally protected.

Front 10

American Booksellers Assn. v. Hudnut

Back 10

was a 1985 court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance, as enacted in Indianapolis, Indiana that "pornography" under the ordinance was the "graphic sexually explicit subordination of women"

Front 11

New York v. Ferber

Back 11

State interest in protecting children allows laws prohibiting distribution of images of sexual performances by minors even where content does not meet tests of obscenity

Paul Ferber and Tim Quinn owned an adult bookstore in Manhattan. Ferber came to the attention of the police when he sold to an undercover police officer two films depicting boys masturbating. He was charged with violating a New York law that forbade the sale of any performance depicting sexual conduct of children under the age of 16

Front 12

U.S. v. American Library Association

Back 12

Congress has the authority to require libraries to censor internet content in order to receive federal funding.

Front 13

Reno v. ACLU

Back 13

case, in which all nine Justices of the Court voted to strike down anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (the CDA), finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

Front 14

Renton v. Playtime Theatres

Back 14

held that localities may impose regulations prohibiting adult theaters from operating within certain areas, finding that the regulation in question was a content-neutral time/place/manner restriction.

Front 15

Interstate Circuit v. Dallas

Back 15

enacted an ordinance establishing a Motion Picture Classification Board to classify films as suitable or not suitable for young persons, who are defined as those under 16 years old

Front 16

Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann

Back 16

Hauptmann was a German ex-convict who was sentenced to death for the abduction and murder of the 20-month-old son of famous pilots Charles Lindbergh.
Hauptmann convicted after massive pretrial publicity
Death penalty eliminated for kidnapping

Front 17

Estes v. Texas

Back 17

Supreme Court overturned the swindling conviction of petitioner Billy Sol Estes, holding that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights had been violated by the publicity associated with the pretrial hearing, which had been carried live on both television and radio. News photography was permitted throughout the trial and parts of it were broadcast as well.

Front 18

Chandler v. Florida

Back 18

held that a state could allow the broadcast and still photography coverage of criminal trials (this case overturned the Estes v. Texas case 20 years prior)

Front 19

Sheppard v. Maxwell

Back 19

The Court ruled that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial due to media interference.

Front 20

Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

Back 20

This case pitted the First Amendment rights of a free press against the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

the Court addressed the constitutionality of an order prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting certain information about Erwin Charles Simants, who was accused of murdering the Henry Kellie family in a small town in Nebraska.

Front 21

Press Enterprise v. Superior Court II

Back 21

If it looks like a trial, then it should be treated like a trial and be open to the public
The United States Supreme Court decided that the public has the right to attend pretrial hearings in criminal cases, including preliminary hearings.

Front 22

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia

Back 22

the Court held that the right to attend criminal trials was "implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment."

Front 23

U.S. v. Moussaoui

Back 23

This appeal is one of extraordinary importance, presenting a direct conflict between a criminal defendant's right "to have 512 compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor (He was a terrorist who hijacked a 9/11 flight, says he be entitled to a jury of peers [Al-quaeda] and not Americans)

Front 24

U.S. v. Salameh

Back 24

Salameh was convicted and sentenced in United States following a jury trial on numerous charges arising out of their involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City.
Held that the rule was broader than necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial system and the defendant’s right to a fair trial

Front 25

Landmark Communications v. Virginia

Back 25

The First Amendment does not permit the criminal punishment of third persons who are strangers to proceedings before such a commission for divulging or publishing truthful information regarding confidential proceedings of the commission.

A Landmark Communications newspaper, The Virginian Pilot, published an article regarding the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission's investigation into a state judge. The article, which was accurate, violated a Virginia law that prohibited the release of information from Commission hearings.

Front 26

Globe Newspapers. v. Superior Court

Back 26

A Massachusetts law required trial courts to exclude members of the press and public from certain cases involving sexual offenses and testimony of victims less than eighteen years old.

Front 27

Branzburg v. Hayes

Back 27

The First Amendment's protection of press freedom does not give a reportorial privilege in court.

Front 28

Bridges v. California

Back 28

the Superior Court's findings of contempt against Bridges and the Times are in violation of the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment

Front 29

Rufo v. Simpson

Back 29

Free Press/Fair Trial - OJ Simpson claimed his trial isn'fair, since they gave Rufo a huge reward that was based off of OJ's future income.

Front 30

U.S. v. Caldwell

Back 30

The subpoena required him to testify in secret about the party's activities. Arguing that testifying would destroy his relationship with sources within the party and thereby "suppress vital First Amendment freedoms . . . by driving a wedge of distrust and silence between the news media and the militants," Caldwell and his employer filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

Front 31

Shoen v. Shoen

Back 31

In 1993 he published Birthright, the saga of the Shoen family which founded and owned U-Haul International and of the then unsolved murder of Eva Shoen. When he refused to identify his sources under subpoena he was twice found in contempt by a Federal court, with his position being upheld by the Ninth Circuit on both occasions.

Front 32

McKevitt v. Pallasch

Back 32

in 2003 in McKevitt v. Pallasch, Judge Posner reaffirmed the majority's opinion in Branzburg.
Judge rejected the notion of reporter’s privilege saying that he did not see why “there needs to be special criteria merely because the possessor of the documents or other evidence sought is a journalist.”

Front 33

Zurcher v. Standford Daily

Back 33

The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, was searched by police after they suspected the paper to be in possession of photographs of a demonstration that took place at the campus' medical center in April 1971
The search of a newsroom does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Front 34

Cohen v. Cowles Media

Back 34

Dan Cohen, a Republican provided inculpatory information on the Democratic challenger for Lieutenant Governor, Marlene Johnson, to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press in exchange for a promise that his identity as the source would not be published.

Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the media from being sued by a news source if a promise of confidentiality is broken.

Front 35

Farr v. Superior Court

Back 35

after Farr left journalism, the judge demanded the name of sources - Farr refused and was cited for contempt

Front 36

Delaney v. Superior Court

Back 36

Brass knuckles found in coat pocket even after consent of search. Newspersons had no privilege or immunity under common law to refuse to disclose the identity of their confidential sources.

Front 37

Baker v. F&F Investments

Back 37

civil case the court noted the journalist had a constitutional right not to reveal his source

This unusual interlocutory appeal involves the validity of a district judge's decision refusing to compel a journalist to disclose confidential news sources. Appellants here are plaintiffs in a federal class action pending in the Northern District of Illinois,1 a case which involves alleged racial discrimination in the sale of houses to Negroes in Chicago.

Front 38

Riley v. Chester

Back 38

she refused to identify the source of her information for a newspaper article she wrote.
the Court said specific requirements had to be met before a reporter should be required to disclose confidential information:
1. The information had been sought elsewhere
2. The information could not be obtained from other sources
3. The information was clearly relevant to the case
In Riley v. City of Chester, the Court held that a reporter's right to protect his sources from disclosure could be overcome by a party who, by a preponderance of the evidence, demonstrated that he has made an effort to obtain the information elsewhere, that the only access to the information sought is through the journalist and his or her source, and that the information sought is crucial to the case