andor provoke violence Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942 Wordswhich by their very

Andor provoke violence chaplinsky v new hampshire

This preview shows page 14 - 16 out of 20 pages.

and/or provoke violenceChaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942): “Words…which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace” are not protected by the 1stAmendment2) Libel/slander: Untrue speech that harms a person’s reputationNew York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964): Libel/slander of a public figure is unprotected and is speech that:o1) Is demonstrably untrueo2) Exhibits clear and reckless disregard of the trutho3) Is said with actual maliceGertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974): Speech that libels/slanders a private figure is speech that:o1) Exhibits negligenceo2) In meeting the normal standard of care for reporting3) Obscenity: Sexually explicit speechMiller v. California (1973): Material depicting sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way…specifically defined by applicable state law” is not protected by the 1stAmendment4) Commercial speech: Speech for profit (i.e. advertising)44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996): Commercial advertising is unprotected if it is about an unlawful product and/or false/misleadingThe Constitutional Rights of Criminal Defendantso4thAmendment (1791): “The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause”Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Evidence obtained in violation of the 4thAmendmentis inadmissible in court
Nix v. Williams (1984): However, the exclusionary rule does not apply to “inevitable” discoveries, discoveries of evidence that definitely would have eventually occurred even without the unconstitutional searchUnited States v. Leon (1984): The exclusionary rule also does not apply to evidence collected in searches that are done in “good faith” but later determined to be unconstitutionalo5thAmendment (1791): “No person shall be…compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Suspects in police custody must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney prior to interrogation or any statements made during the interrogation will be inadmissible in courto6thAmendment (1791): “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…have the assistance of counsel for his defense”Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): The 6thAmendment confers a positive right for those who cannot afford a lawyer to have a court-appointed lawyer represent them at no costo8thAmendment (1791): No “cruel and unusual punishments” shall be inflictedThe 8thAmendment and the enforcement of “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”Atkins v. Virginia (2002): The mentally handicapped cannot be executed because their diminished mental capacity makes them less responsible for their crimes and because there is an emerging national consensus against executing the mentally handicapped (as evidenced by recent trends in state death penalty laws)Roper v. Simmons (2005): Juvenile offenders cannot be executed because of their lack of maturity and sense of responsibility

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture