unprotected2 - Constitutional Law II UnprotectedSpeechPartII

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–9. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Constitutional Law II Unprotected Speech – Part II
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 Con Law II 2 Categories of unprotected  speech Subversion Incitement  of imminent lawlessness Threat/Solicitation  of crime Defamation Obscenity Fighting Words - Vulgarity Hate Speech  (“group libel”) Functional (Performative) Speech
Background image of page 2
Fall 2006 Con Law II 3 Categories of unprotected  speech Subversion Incitement  of imminent lawlessness Threat/Solicitation  of crime Defamation Obscenity Fighting Words - Vulgarity Hate Speech  (“group libel”) Functional (Performative) Speech
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 Con Law II 4 Obscenity Categorical Balancing for Obscene Speech Textualism – protected Originalism – not protected by states in 1792 Dynamic – lacks any 1 st  amendment value Non-interpretivism – universal judgment federal legislation state international Subjective nature of non-interpretivism:  Stewart in  Jacobellis v. Ohio  (1964):  “I know it when I see it”
Background image of page 4
Fall 2006 Con Law II 5 Obscenity Categorical Balancing for Obscene Speech Textualism – protected Originalism – not protected by states in 1792 Dynamic – lacks any 1 st  amendment value Memoirs v. Massachusetts  (1966):  “utterly without redeeming social value”  add some  social  commentary  and,  voila , not  obscene
Background image of page 5

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 Con Law II 6 Obscenity as Unprotected Speech Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton  (1973) Obscenity is instrumental (action not speech) arouses physical emotion  (interprellative effect) cognitive, emotional, reflexive? secondary effects - violence against women Leads to antisocial behavior corrupts morals offends sensibilities of unwilling viewers/listeners desensitizes people to rational thought Fails to serve any underlying 1 st  am purpose
Background image of page 6
Fall 2006 Con Law II 7 Miller v. California   (1973) Facts: Advertising mailings consisting of explicit  depictions of sexual activities and organs State interest: Impact on juveniles state has special interest in protecting Impact on unwitting viewers countervailing constitutional right - privacy Impact on willing viewers erosion of community morals
Background image of page 7

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 Con Law II 8 Miller v. California   (1973)  Standards for unprotected obscenity Works that depict or describe sexual conduct Taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient  interest in sex using contemporary community standards Portray sex in patently offensive way  (hard core) intercourse (normal or perverted, actual or simulated) masturbation, excretion, lewd exhibition of genitals Taken as a whole Taken as a whole , do not  have serious literary, political,  or scientific value objective national standards
Background image of page 8
Image of page 9
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/05/2010 for the course LAW LAW5502 taught by Professor Stern during the Spring '10 term at Florida State College.

Page1 / 38

unprotected2 - Constitutional Law II UnprotectedSpeechPartII

This preview shows document pages 1 - 9. Sign up to view the full document.

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