1. Using Cards to Prepare for Midterm Exam

2. Sample Card: Case Covered in Ian’s PPT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, Lecture #1 Draft Card Burning U.S. vs. O’Brien (1968) Lecture #1, page 89 in Barker Statute banning burning of draft card did NOT violate 1 st Amendment Holding: Criminalizing burning draft cards did not violate 1 st Amendment because its effect on speech was only incidental, and it was justified by the significant governmental interest in ensuring efficient draft system. Rule: The gov’t interest justifies limiting symbolic speech if it meets the following: (a) it is within the constitutional power of gov’t; (b) it advances an “important or substantial” gov’t interest”; (c) the interest is not related to suppressing free speech; (d) the impact on free speech is minimal, or “no greater than is essential” to achieve the desired interest.

3. Sample Card: Case NOT Covered in Ian’s PPT, but mentioned in Barker FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, Lecture #1 Hate Crimes Wisconsin v. Mitchell (Barker p. 88, bottom of right column) Reading for Lecture #1 but not mentioned in lecture Stricter sentences for hate crimes are constitutional, although hate speech itself is protected by the First Amendment Wisconsin hate-crime statute: Increased the maximum sentences for crimes in which the defendant “intentionally selects the person against whom the crime…is committed because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of the person.” Holding: Statute does not violate the First Amendment protections of Free Speech because 1) sentencing judges can consider factors other than evidence when determining motive for a crime, and bias against a certain race can be a motive in a crime and 2) the statute regulates conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment and is likely to cause significant and individual harm (e.g. a crime)