Free Speech

Types of Free Speech Public Order Obscene speech Libel and Slander Symbolic Free Press and Fair Trail Commercial Speech Campaigning

Free Speech Pro Con Can be harmful Hateful speech can cause damage Enables Right to express personal thoughts Protects against special interest Allows diverse viewpoints Gives everyone a voice without fear Allows expression in art and personal dress Can be harmful Hateful speech can cause damage Can cause panic Can show Obscenity such as porn Can destroy reputations

Near v. Minnesota (1931) Man published scandal sheet attacking local officials as “gangsters” States stopped it under a gag law against public officials Court ruled “gag rule” unconstitutional

Schenck v. United States (1919) Man mailed circulars to draftees during WWI Urged the draftees to petition to repeal the conscription Act He was charged of conspiracy under the Espionage Act Court ruled he was not protected in this situation, saying that during wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished

Denis v. United States (1951) Leaders of communist part of America arrested and charged with violating Smith Act, trying to overthrow the government Court upheld the convictions of communist party leaders, created “clear and present danger”

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Leader of KKK made speech at KKK rally and convicted under Ohio syndicalism Law (made it illegal to advocate for crime, violence, sabotage) Court ruled Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech Two pronged test Speech can be prohibited if it is directing at inciting or producing imminent lawless action Likely to incite or produce such action

Roth v. United States (1957) Roth was convicted of mailing obscene books in violation of obscenity statue Court held that obscenity was not “within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press”

Miller v. California (1973)* Miller conducted mass mailing campaign to advertise sale of “adult” material, was convicted by California statue prohibiting distribution of obscene material Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy 1st amendment protection Created test for Obscenity The work, taken as a whole, appealed “to a prurient interest in sex” The work showed “patently offensive” sexual conduct that was specifically defined by an obscenity law The work, taken as a whole, lacked “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”

Erznoznik v. Jacksonville (1975) Jacksonville had ordinance prohibiting the showing of films containing nudity if film visible in public area (drive in theater) Court struck down ordinance, ordinance was too broad and people can avert their eyes

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) California had law to impose restrictions and labeling requirements on sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors Law struck down Saying it did not constitute as obsenityt and that California did not have compelling interest in preventing damage allegedly caused to minors by video games

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) Libel suit filed by Montgomery city against New York time for a full page ad that alleged the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King’s efforts and discourage blacks to vote Court ruled 1st amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (knowledge that they are false)

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988) Hustler magazine feature s “parody” of an ad claiming a minister had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse Falwell sued for Libel Court ruled in favor of the Magazine stating public figures may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement made as fact with “actual malice”

*Texas v. Johnson (1989) Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan. Tried and convicted under Texas law outlawing flag desecration Court ruled his flag burning was protected under the 1st amendment, fell into category of expressive conduct, that had a political nature

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) Branzburg was a reporter who interviewed two people using drugs and was called upon to testify but refused to testify against those he interviewed Court ruled that that the reporters were not protected and that even though they were given information confidentially did not mean they could withhold information from government investigation

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978) Palo Alto police obtained a warrant to search main offices of The Stanford Daily, looking for pictures of violent clash protesters to identify assailants Ruled search did not violate freedom of speech as it was to locate evidence in of crime

Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo (1974) Tornillo executive director of Classroom Teachers Association and ran for florida house of representatives Miami Herald published article criticizing him, he demanded Herald publish his responses to article, they refused to he sued Supreme court ruled in Favor of newspaper stating the “right to reply” statue violates freedom of the press

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) Congress try's to restrict financial contributions to candidates, limiting amount an individual could contribute to a single campaign Court ruled ruled that restrictions on individual contributions did not violate first amendment Court also ruled that the limit on what an individual can contribute to their own campaign did violate the 1st amendment

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) Citizens United (a PAC) tried to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to it’s film Hilary: the movie The application would regulate big money and its ability to campaign The court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited

Federal Laws 1st Amendment- Freedom of speech 1st Amendment- Freedom of Assembly 1st Amendment- Freedom of Press Prior Restraint- cant published classified documents FCC- federal communications commission Hate Crimes Prevention Act- threatening comments illegal

State Laws For Campus Free Speech areas Free speech public areas Funding for the arts Allow free speech in privately owned public areas

State Laws Against Limit free speech on college campuses- for speaker and hecklers Limit Hate speech Banning Violent video games and movies Limiting pornography access Limiting erotic Dancing Ban women topless as obscene Ban free speech zones on campuses