{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Pruneyard Shopping Center v

Pruneyard Shopping Center v - Pruneyard Shopping Center v...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins 1. Students set up a table at Pruneyard Shopping Center and passed out pamphlets opposing anti-Semitic activities of the UN. The owner disagreed with the views of the young students and had them leave. 2. The Constitution of California gives free, reasonably exercised, speech and petitioning to people in shopping centers. 3. Violation of 5 th Am property rights 4. Students 5. Students had right to free speech in public space. Just because owner disagrees with message doesn’t mean he can abridge their freedom of speech. California statue in accordance with Constitution. 6. States can expand on their own constitutions as long as they are in accordance with the federal constitution. 7. The California statute was abridging the property rights of the shopping center owner. Texas v. Johnson 1. Johnson burned an American flag on the steps of city hall as a means to protest the Reagan administration at a rally. He was promptly arrested due to a Texas law banning the burning of flags. 2. Texas statute outlawing the burning of the American flag. 3. Violation of the 1 st Am. Free speech 4. Johnson 5. Court found Johnson’s burning of the flag a political statement of an expressive nature. It in no way caused anyone imminent danger or could be considered as fighting words. Court can’t prohibit expression just because society finds it offensive. 6. Flag Burning is considered protected free speech. 7. Flag burning could lead to breach of peace. He should have used words instead of actions to express his discontent. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. Due to a series of mistrials in a Virginia murder case, the judge was asked to have the court room closed to the public and the media. When closed, reporters of the Richmond Newspaper challenged the judge’s ruling. 2. The judge’s ruling to close off the trial to both the public and the media. 3. Violation of the 1 st Am and 6 th Am right to a public trial. 4. Richmond Newspaper 5. 1 st Am not only gives freedom to speak freely, but also to listen freely. It also gives the right to assemble in public places, including court houses. A public trail is also explicitly guaranteed in the 6 th Am of the Constitution. 6. Public trails cannot be closed off to the public for no reason. It is the public’s and media’s constitutional right to listen to a trail. 7. The judge, defendant, and prosecutor all accepted that the trail be closed off. In no way were anyone’s civil liberties being abridged. Miller v. California 1. Miller was convicted of mass mailing porno brochures. He sent one to a family who complained to the state. Miller was arrested in accordance with the Ca. law forbidding the selling or eliciting of pornographic material. 2.
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.
  • Spring '10
  • First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Illegal drug trade, school officials, New York statute, Pruneyard Shopping Center

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 7

Pruneyard Shopping Center v - Pruneyard Shopping Center v...

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

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