December 10, 2008

Obsecenity
Ruth v. US (1957)
Obscenity is not protected; the difficulty is in deciding what is obscene.
-The court set a test for obscenity
-'Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.'
Miller v. California (1973)
Reused the obscenity test
-Now, obscenity may be regulated by government if 1. the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest 2. The work portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive way 3. The work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value

Local community standards govern the first and second prongs of this test

Feminism and Pornography
In American Booksellers Association Hudnut(1984), A US district court struck down an Indianapolis ordinance that tried to restrict pornography as a form of expression of ideas because of its effecton women's status and treatment in society.
The judge ruled that the ordinance went too far in its attempts to restrict otherwise protected expression. The District Court decision was upheld by a US court of Appeals and the Supreme Court opted not to take the case under review.
Feminist political theory challenged pornography because it affects women's status and treatment in society

Barnes V. Glen Theater
Court upheld state law banning public nudity in the interest of protecting social order and morality.
*This is an example of police power
The court hinted that erotic dancing was a form of artistic expression, and was entitled to some degree of 1st amendment protection.

Freedom of the Press
Goverment shall make no law... abridging the freedom of the press
Libel- the written defamation of character
slander- the verbal defamation of chaaracter

NY Times V. Sullivan (1964)
Freedom of the press takes precedence- At least when the defamed individual is a public official.
The 1st amendment protects the publication of all statemens- even false ones- about the conduct of public officials
-The exception is statements made with malice
-The ruling has been extended to apply to suits brought by any public person whether a government official or not a public person is someone who has a significant role in society:actors, sports figures, etc.

Hustler Magazine V. Falwell (1988)
Hustler published an article that ridiculed Jerry Falwell
-Falwell sued and won $200,000 for emotional distress. The Supreme Court overturned the award and broadened the latitude of free speech. Even outrageous and offensive publishments about public figures are protected under the 1st amendment.

Prior restraint and the Press
Near V. Minnesota (1931)
Minnesota officials obtained a court order to prevent the publication of a scandal sheet which charged that local government officials were in league with gangsters.
-The injunction was based on a state law that permitted restrictions on malicious and deflamatory publications.
-This is Prior Restraint
The Supreme Court struck down the law because of prior restraint

New York Times V. US
The Supreme Court would not issue a court order stopping the publication of stolen classified documents about US involvement in Vietnam.
The court said that the government had not shown that immediate, inevitable, and irreparable harm would follow publication.
Reporters and Protected Sources
Branzburg V. Hayes (1972)
-Precedent is that freedom of the press does not override the requirements of law enforcement.
A reporter who had done an article about criminal activity refused to testify about people he had seen breaking drug laws
The court rejected his claim that the 1st amendment protected him from having to testify. Court ruled that all citizens have a duty to give their government whatever testimony they are capable of giving

Zurcher V. Stanford Daily (1978)
Court reiterated that journalists are protected from the demands of law enforcement
In this case, the Stanford newspaper could not whithhold photographs of a violent demonstration.

Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmar (1988)
The court upheld a high school principal's decision to delete articles on divorce and teenage pregnancy from the school's newspaper
The court said that educators may limit speech within the limit of the school's curriculum and speech that might seem to bear the approval of the school provided that their actions served a valid educational purpose

Right to Assemble Peacefully
The right to assemble peacefully is equated with the right to free speech and a free press. Government can't prohibit peaceful political meetings and can't brand as criminals those who organize, lead, and attend such meetings.