1-28 notes - ii) Agrees with holding, forget the value...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
01/28/2009 LSJ 379 1) Free Speech i) What should be protected? (a) Does not involve street speech – popular speech. ii) Founders were protecting dissenting political opinions 2) Cohen v California i) Fuck the draft ii) Ca. prohibiting specific speech iii) “can California excise as offensive conduct one specifically offensive act” (1) Categorical approach (a) Libel (b) Obscenity (c) Fighting words (2) Speech plus conduct (3) Time Place Manner (4) Overbreadth 3) FCC v Pacifica 1978 a) FCC wins b) Constricts freedom of speech c) Concurrence with flawed logic i) Uniquely persuasive because it comes into peoples houses ii) Uniquely Accessible to children d) If this was political speech it would ultimately be similar to restricting a printing press i) Critique of society, takes away the words power, could be seen as a form of political opinion e) Powell’s concurrence – less valuable than a political candidates opinion. i) Avenue, place – need to protect the children
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ii) Agrees with holding, forget the value judgment because it is broadcast media. f) TEST – Chiplinsky – tight social value balancing test value vs. societies right to order 4) Civil Liberties v Civil Rights a) Civil Rights – take action to protect b) Civil Liberties – actions that the government cannot restrict 5) Hate crimes – patterns, power, minority/majority 6) R.A.V. v St. Paul a) R.A.V. wins – expanding free speech rights - unanimous b) TEST – Chiplinsky test again c) Government can disallow categories but the not specific ideas within categories. i) Must disallow all fighting words not just intimidating fighting words d) Not overly broad but also not overly narrow 7) Wisconsin v Mitchell a) Wisconsin wins, unanimous – Sentence enhancements – are totally seen to be left up to the state government....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/19/2009 for the course LSJ 361 taught by Professor Squatrito during the Spring '09 term at University of Washington.

Page1 / 2

1-28 notes - ii) Agrees with holding, forget the value...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online