A big shout out to Andrew, not only for his creativity, but also for sharing this with his classmates before the exam, and now with me. I hope you enjoy it! My favorite has to be the one on obscenity, of course! But, really, they are all great!
Now, courtesy of Andrew Cook:
Obscenities
How do we know if something is obscene,
indecent, violent, or otherwise unclean?
I'll tell you how- you use the Miller Test
to
determine if the 1st amendment protects
the
content in question must be that which
the
average person deems offensive. If it depicts
sexual
or excretory activities
[or
any other such undesirable qualities]
Or
if it lacks serious value specifically
political,
artistic, scientific, or literary,
If
the content in question matches any one of these things
Then
you can bet your ass that shit's obscene.
Indecencies
A
shout out to law students across the nation
regarding
the FCC vs Pacifica Foundation
case
involving comedian George Carlan
where
a father and his boy were drivin' a car when
they
turned on the radio and what did they hear?
Comedian
George Carlan yelling indecencies in their ears
The
father complained about all the fucked up shit
Carlan
said on the radio in front of his kid
He
sicked the FCC on the radio show
because
he didn't think kids should know
the"
Filthy Words" that Carlan used
and
the Supreme Court was forced to choose
whether
or not that shit was indecent.
They
ruled 5 to 4 for with the reason
that
Carlin's act was in fact indecent,
but not an obcenity. It's important to make this destinction.
but not an obcenity. It's important to make this destinction.
As
a result of this landmark case
indecent
material only airs late
at
night when children go to sleep
we
can hear explicit content without them motherfuckin bleeps.
Internet regulation
Let
me tell you about Reno vs the ACLU,
the
first internet related Supreme Court issue.
The
American Civil Liberties Union tried to pass
what they called the Communications Decency Act
The
name may sound noble but that's a load of crap.
It
was supposed to protect minors from pornography
or
anyone under the age of 18.
Instead
it targeted civil liberties-
paved
the way for attacks on our privacy.
After
a brief deliberation by the justiCEES
It's
unconstitutionality was declared unanimously.
Similarly
in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
the USSC struck down 2 overly broad provisions
within the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996
that would have otherwise given lawful speech limits.
Video Games
This
next case resulted in a clear victory
for
video gamers and for free speech
In
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
The USSC entered deliberation
on whether or not video games would be protected
by the first amendment and they eventually elected
in a 9-0 ruling it was plain to see
that video games were protected speech.
Advertising
Central Hudson Gas and
Electric Corporation
challenged a Public Service
Commission regulation
by presenting the court with
a certain allegation
that prohibiting advertising
was a violation
of the 1st and 14th
amendments to our nation's
constitution and the
justices agreed that a test was in need
to see when restricting
commercial speech could succeed.
A four-step analysis was
devised
to decide if said regulation
could survive.
Step one- is the expression
unlawful or misleading?
If it is you might have
trouble proceeding
Step two- what does the
regulation do?
Does it assert a substantial
government interest or two?
Step three- this is where
you must see
clear advancement of an
interest through the decree
Step four- decide if the
regulation is more
extensive than necessary to
achieve the goal.
If it passes this test the
legislation
can become a commercial
speech regulation.
The last regulation to face
the hudson test
the case Lorillard vs.
Reilly promptly addressed.
The Lorillard Tobacco
company challenged the constitutionality
of Massachusettes legislation
that wanted to see
the ban of tobacco sales
within the vacinity
of all educational
facilities.
The regulation didn't
withstand the trial
The judges couldn't ignore
the inherent denial
of Lorillard's first
amendment rights
further classifying
advertising in a different light
as a form of free speech
protected by
the first amendment to the
constitution
Advertising went through an
evolution
becoming a new form of
speech in the supreme court's eyes,
a decision corporations will
gladly stand behind.
Libel
Next on my list is Gertz v Welch
I'm starting the libel chapter in case you couldn't tell.
This case established a defense to defamation
for private individuals in varied situations
where they did nothing to seek public figure status
elevation.
Gertz was such- a private individual
hired on behalf of a grieving family in a suit of the
civil
variety that had lost their son to a crooked cop
but even after the verdict the pain don't stop,
it doesn't matter if he was guilty or not.
Gertz was dragged into the public eye.
Allegations were made that he was a communist spy.
Accusations which Gertz had no effective way to deny.
The article was published in the American Opinion
filled with libel, defamation and ad hominem
It accused Gertz of fronting for communists,
of framing cops and other crimes he did not commit.
Gertz filed suit to pay for damages,
for people's loss of confidence
in his credibility and unknowingly
he set precedent for vicitms of defemation
he set precedent for vicitms of defemation
to avenge themselves by receiving due compensation.
The court ruled that Welch had infringed
on the private-figure status of a citizen.
With a majority lead justice Powell did proceed
to make a distinction between publicity and privacy
the former having more resources to clear up controversy
than the average man or woman trying to live privately.
Therefore the burden of responsibility
to prove libel should be held to a lower standard of
scrutiny
for plaintiffs in cases involving breach of their
privacy.
