{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

chapter 3 noteshells - MMC 4200 Spring 2011 Chapter 3 Prof...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

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

Unformatted text preview: MMC 4200 Spring 2011 Chapter 3 Prof. Sandra Chance The First Amendment The First Amendment Methods of Controlling Expression Chapter 3 Prior Restraints and Postpublication Punishment • Injunctions – New York Times v. United States • Military Security Review • Licensing – Ok for public forums (parades) • No discrimination based on content – Broadcast‐ physical limits on spectrum justify licensing. Must operate in public interest. • Red Lion v. FCC – Cable • Governments grant “franchises” for construction and operation of system • Discriminatory Taxation – No special taxes on newspaper & magazines • No laws which impose financial burden on speakers based on the content of their speech. – Simon & Schuster v. New York State Crime Victims Board Copyright©2011 S. Chance 1 MMC 4200 Spring 2011 Chapter 3 Prof. Sandra Chance New York Times v. U. S. Pentagon Papers Prior restraint at issue Prior restraint presumptively unconstitutional Rule of Law: A prior restraint may be appropriate where publication of vital government information threatens national security. • But government didn’t meet burden in this case. • • • • • Speaker • Location of Speaker •Plaza Preacher First Amendment Analysis Depends On: • Content of Speech •Fighting Words/Hate Speech/Account of Crimes • Type of Regulation – Content‐based or Content‐Neutral ? Restrictions on Speech Content‐based regulations are Content almost always struck down. • Non‐content (content‐neutral) can be constitutional. Copyright©2011 S. Chance 2 MMC 4200 Spring 2011 Chapter 3 Prof. Sandra Chance Two Tests (operate the same) – Judges use: • The O’Brien Test for laws that incidentally regulate expression (noise ordinances) • Time, Place, Manner Test – Regulates expressive activities (picketing) – Tests require government to show: 1. significant (substantial) governmental interest (health & safety of citizens) 2. narrowly tailored and 3. alternative channels. Expression v. Conduct • Expression designed to communicate ideas. • Conduct not protected. • Symbolic speech or expressive conduct is protected but can be regulated. “Son of Sam” Law Copyright©2011 S. Chance 3 ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online