FundamentalRightToBallLikeAmotherfuckingBatemanRedux

FundamentalRightToBallLikeAmotherfuckingBatemanRedux -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Table of Contents The Problem of "Dangerous" Speech First Amendment; Carolene Products n.4 (handout p. 1) Carolene Products FN4: 3 categories of legislation/gov action that are subject to heightened scrutiny if it appears that gov is infringing on certain types of freedoms. Gov action that restricts freedom of expression falls into all three categories: o 1. Legislation that impinges on one of the rights/liberties protected in the Bill of Rights o 2. Legislation that restricts the political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation Prohibiting people from expressing their opinions will undermine our democratic process (informed self-government and political accountability) o 3. Statutes directed at particular religious or national or racial minorities and statutes animated by prejudice against discrete and insular minorities (usually associated w/ EP) Tendency to trample on unpopular minority viewpoints Courts will apply STRICT SCRUTINY to statutes that do any of the above Holmes, the "clear and present danger" test, and the marketplace of ideas : (pp. 1049; 1061-78) Schenck v. United States ; Debs v. United States (not on Part 2;) Schenck – published a circular urging people to petition to have the draft repealed and gave it to draftees Debs – Debs was a leader of the socialist party and delivered a speech opposing WWI, Court said speech might actually cause his liteners to oppose the draft which posed a clear and present danger Both were convicted under the act SC upholds convictions simply on the basis of words; regarded under Espionage law as attempts to interfere w/ the war effort o Holmes : there’s a distinction between agitation against the draft system (protected) and a direct incitement to violent resistance (not protected) o Jarring to find an individual can be convicted of espionage b/c his/her words had a tendency to cause some kind of significant harm at some undetermined point in the future o Big Red Scare going on; even Holmes was caught up in It—voted to uphold convictions o Holmes lays groundwork for more protection in the future in Shenck by writing about context--- clear and present danger associated w/ yelling Fire! In a crowded theater and the fact that the 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
nation was at war and that certain things said during peacetime will not be tolerated during war Abrams v. United States; Abrams : pamphlets being issued by Communist sympathizers and Holmes uses the clear and present danger test from Schenk to PROTECT freedom of speech in his dissent (convictions are upheld); places much more emphasis on the immediacy of the threat than in earlier decisions; immediacy of threat means gov can suppress the speech o Majority endorses the idea that if there is speech that has a foreseeable tendency to cause this harm at some point in the future—that’s enough and gov can act Holmes, Marketplace of Ideas: “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
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 / 60

FundamentalRightToBallLikeAmotherfuckingBatemanRedux -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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