Break Down of Cases by Doctrine

Break Down of Cases by Doctrine - Break Down of Cases by...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

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

Unformatted text preview: Break Down of Cases by Doctrine/Justice (applicable Justice) Freedom of Speech: 1. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc v. FCC (1994) pp.1205-1247 a. Kennedy delivered opinion : Must carry legislation do not violate 1 st amendment; they further important governmental interests and do not substantially burden more speech than necessary. b. OConnor, Scalia, Ginsburg, Thomas concurring/dissenting: Here, court is favoring 1 form of speech to detriment of another. 2. Boos v. Barry (1988) a. OConnor delivered opinion If a restriction on speech is not content-neutral, it is subject to SS 3. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) a. Scalia delivered opinion It is a violation of the 1 st am to prohibit judicial candidates from announcing views on disputed legal or political issues. b. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer dissented this decision could lead to the judiciary behaving as politicians. 4. City of Renton vs. Playtime Theatres, Inc (1986) a. A municipality may enact content-neutral zoning regulations limiting the area where adult theatres may operate. 5. Pleasant Grove case 6. National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998) a. OConnor delivered opinion Congress can take into account decency and restrict speech that it is subsidizing when it is forced to choose based upon content. b. Souter dissented Decency/respect criteria forces viewpoint-based decisions in disbursement of govt subsidies and violates 1 st amendment. 7. U.S. v. American Library Assn (2003) a. Plurality: Rehnquist delivered opinion, OConnor, Scalia, Thomas public library can block software so that adult things cant be seen on public computers b. Kennedy concurred, Breyer concurred c. Stevens dissented, Souter & Ginsberg dissented (local libraries should do this on their own, etc.) Vagueness & Overbreadth pp. 1247-1254 No main cases read Prior Restraints pp.1254-1273 (OMIT pp....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/27/2010 for the course LAW 840 taught by Professor Tim during the Spring '10 term at University of Louisville.

Page1 / 4

Break Down of Cases by Doctrine - Break Down of Cases by...

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