Cyberlaw Midterm 1 Review

Cyberlaw Midterm 1 Review - Cyberlaw Midterm 1 Cases...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cyberlaw Midterm 1 Cases: Incitement and True Threats Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Facts: KKK leader in Ohio spoke at a rally in a rural part of the state – prior to the even he contacted a reporter to cover the rally – spoke of revenge and marching on congress – in Ohio it was illegal to advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of violence as a means of accomplishing reform – convicted – goes to Supreme Court and argues 1 st Amendment Decision: Supreme Court overturns ruling Significance: Speaker must intend to incite illegal action, and must be a threat of imminent lawless action Watts v. United States (1969) Facts: Watts was at anti-war rally and gave a passionate speech – said if he had a rifle he was going to shoot President Johnson – there is a federal statute that you cant make a threat against the President – convicted, appeals to Supreme court Decision: Supreme Court overturns ruling – said it was legal to make law to forbid “true” threat but didn’t believe Watts fit this criteria (he was speaking in hyperbole) Significance: Two prong test: Objective test –really make threat? Subjective test – did he really mean it? Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (9 th Cir. 2002) Facts: Horsley would block access to abortion clinics, put signs outside of residences, abortion cams, website with wanted ad for abortion doctors (Nuremberg Files) – Planned Parenthood sued for violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act (FACE) – which makes intimidation illegal – Jury awards PP $107 mill – on appeal 9 th Cir. (3 judges) throw out appeal – PP asks for En Banc and the court restores the judgment but new hearing on damages Decision: Supreme Court denies cert; 9 th circuit awards $5 mill in damages Significance: Incitement analysis – even if violence is advocated, unlikely satisfy imminence requirement set out in Brandenburg Threat Analysis – given the context of violence, abortion providers might reasonably believe that they are being threatened
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
United States v. Baker (E.D. Mich. 1997) Facts: Jake Baker – student at Michigan posts sexually explicit stores on the internet – used a name of a classmate – an alum told the university, his room was search and officials found emails to Arthur Gonda discussing plans to act out one of the stories – Baker charged with transmitting a threat (not for writing stories) Decision: Case dismissed – no proof of a true threat Significance: Michigan should have acted; should have been handled by school alone 1 st Amendment and Sexually Explicit Speech Roth v. United States (1957) Facts: Roth was arrested and charged with violating federal obscenity law for mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book – Roth didn’t contest his guilt but appealed on the grounds that obscene speech qualifies for 1 st Amendment protection Decision: Supreme Court combines appeal with Albert v. California and upheld the conviction Significance: Obscenity is not protected under the 1
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 12

Cyberlaw Midterm 1 Review - Cyberlaw Midterm 1 Cases...

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