CASES Flashcards
Brandenburg v Ohio
KKK leader convicted under statute criminalizing the advocacy & teaching of violence for accomplishing a political goal
HELD: statute overbroad, overinclusive because it doesn’t distinguish between mere advocacy from actual incitement of lawless action
Hess v Indiana
Hess shouting “We’ll take the fucking street later” during antiwar protest
HELD: not incitement, words to nobody in particular, advocacy of action at some indefinite future time, no intent or likelihood of producing imminent lawless action
US v. Williams
Williams offered & did exchange sexually explicit photos of minors in chatroom
HELD: offer to exchange illegal materials not protected by 1A
Note: advocacy of child porn okay, just not offers to provide or requests to obtain
Dennis v United States
Smith Act made it a crime to knowingly engage in conspiracy to teach about and advocate the overthrow of US gov. Dennis arrested for doing so.
HELD: upheld SA (even though action not imminent -> exception to rule?)
Yates v United States
Yates charged under Smith Act. Yates limits Dennis to advocacy of action
HELD: vague references to revolutionary action is advocacy of belief; systematic teaching & instruction in tasks that’d be useful when time for violent action arrived = advocacy of action
NY Times Co v Sullivan
Sullivan commissioner of PD, FD, brought civil libel action against NY Times for allegedly false statements about his actions to control black protestors and his treatment of MLKJ
HELD: failed to show “actual malice” D may have been negligent but no showing he knew of falsity or disregarded facts
Gertz v Robert Welch
Magazine falsely accused attorney Gertz of masterminding a prosecution against a chicago PD
HELD:
(1) not public figure b/c he did not thrust himself into vortex of public issue, didn’t talk to press, etc
(2) actual malice to recover for presumed/punitive damages, only negligence for compensatory damages
Dun & Bradstreet v Greenmoss Builders
Dunn sent false credit report to 5 people indicating Greenmoss had filed for bankruptcy but it was a good faith mistake.
HELD: showing of actual malice not required for punitive damages. negligence (maybe even SL) is standard
speech was private b/c small audience of 5 who can’t disseminate further, objectively verifiable, unlikely to be deterred by incidental state regulation
Time Inc v Hill
Magazine owned by Time Inc published an article that mentioned Broadway play chronicled on the experience of Hill and his family when they were captives, but had factual inaccuracies
HELD: even where no damage to reputation is alleged (no libel), calculated falsehoods will not enjoy immunity. Restrictable as “false light tort” where falsity causes emotional injury
Illinois ex rel Madigan v Telemarking Associations Inc
Vietnow was nonprofit for veterans that contracted with Telemarking Associates to collect donations. Viet got 15% and Tele got 85% donations, Tele associate told a donor 90% went to veterans
HELD: 1A does not protect fraud
United States v Alvarez
Act made it illegal to lie about receiving military decorations, P told people he received a medal of honor when he hadn’t
o Plurality: even lies are protected by FA unless defamation, fraud, false light, perjury, impersonating govt. official (injury to person or gov’t process). Law restricting lies must pass strict scrutiny. But this act does not pass, it’s too broad & there are less restrictive means
o Concurrence (Kagan, Breyer): lies are entitled to lower protection, unless about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, etc. (intermediate scrutiny).
o Dissent: Lies are generally unprotected unless about philosophy, religion, history, social science, the arts, etc.
United States v Cooper
Cooper published paper criticizing Pres Adams for forming a permanent navy, being on the verge of having a standing army, degrading country’s credit, etc.
HELD: convicted under sedition act [makes it illegal to publish false writings against US]
effective gov is based on confidence of citizens and seditious libel erodes that
Miller v California
D conducted mass-mailing campaign advertising the sale of obscene books by sending mailings to unwilling recipients through mail
HELD: upheld D’s conviction for distributing obscene materials, pass 3-part Miller test
Roth v United States
D operated book selling business, prosecuted for violating federal obscenity statute that prohibited mailing of obscene materials
HELD: obscenity not protected by 1A, historically was not constitutionally protected
Paris Adult Theatre I v Slaton
D owned & operated adult movie theater, P complained b/c theatre showed 2 obscene films
HELD: obscene films not protected even as to consenting adults; states have legit interest in regulating material in places of public accommodation. Congressional report noted link btw obscene material and crime.
Grayned v City of Rockford
D convicted under anti noise ordinance prohibiting anyone from intentionally making any ‘noise or diversion’ while adjacent to a school in session that ‘tends to disturb’ the piece of the school
HELD: not unconstitutionally vague. It gives fixed time & place on when it applies, enforcement will be confined to conduct that disrupts school activity, no discrimination based on content of speech.
▪ Terms of statute need not have mathematical certainty but be “marked w/ flexibility and reasonable breadth, [not] meticulous specificity”
Smith v Goguen
MA statute prohibits anyone from treating American flag with contempt, Goguen cut a piece of flag and sewed it over back pocket of it jeans.
HELD: unconstitutionally vague, gives too high level of discretion to cops in deciding how to enforce
Board of Airport Commrs v Jews for Jesus
Airport board passed resolution that prohibited 1A activities in central terminal area of airport, D was distributing free religious material there. Board said restriction was on “non airport related speech”
HELD: “non-airport related” unconstitutionally vague and too subjective in deciding what speech falls into that
Reno v ACLU
Comm Decency Act prohibited the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages via Internet to anyone under 18
HELD: too broad, does not define indecent or offensive
▪ Bans on speech that “in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs” sees as vague enough to make law overbroad
o Striking down provision of CDA prohibiting transmission of indecent material to minors b/c internet isn’t as “invasive” as radio and unlike licensing of tv/radio, there is no inference of official/societal approval.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v Mansky
No wearing political badges or other insignia at polling place.
HELD: unmoored use of the term ‘political’ combined with haphazard interpretations -> unconstitutionally vague
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire
Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, called a city marshal a “God-damned racketeer” and “a damned fascist” in a public place. He was arrested and convicted under a state law for violating a breach of the peace.
HELD: upheld statute which punished “offensive, derisive or annoying words” to another b/c it was narrowly drawn to preserve public peace by forbidding face to face words likely to breach peace.
fighting words have little social value, makes no contribution to marketplace of ideas, no 1A protections
Cohen v California
City code prohibited ‘maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct.’ Cohen convicted after wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the draft”
HELD: CA law unconstitutional
D’s conduct not directed at anyone, anyone who is offended can avert their eyes
Texas v Johnson
D burned American flag during political demonstration, state charged him with desecration of a venerated object in violation of statute
HELD: no incitement of violence no fighting words, his conduct was expressive conduct with a political message that is protected under 1A
Snyder v Phelps
church founder organized picket and protest of military funeral with offensive signs: “Thank God for 9/11” + Thank God for dead soldiers”
HELD: picketing protected, speech on matters of public concern protected even if it inflicts IIED
public concern b/c relates to political and moral conduct of US and citizens
Rowan v United States Post Office Dept
Upheld a law that banned mailings to:
(1) a person’s home when
(2) the recipient specifically objected to the mailing, and
(3) the recipient had the legal right to object to any mailing, w/ no content judgment on the govt.’s part, and
(statute was facially limited to material that “addressee … believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative” but court stressed addressee could even block “dry goods catalog[s]”)
(4) the ban left the speakers free to communicate to willing listeners in other homes (not stressed by Rowan court)
Organization for Better Austin v Keefe
no prior restraint (against individuals)
Reversing injunction on distribution of leaflets and articles meant to pressure Keefe (real estate broker) to change his conduct of selling to Negroes.
Invasion of privacy doesn’t warrant prior restraint on peaceful distribution of informational literature.
Can’t enjoin speech against a person JUST because it’s about that person.
FCC v Pacifica Foundation
HELD: gov may restrain vulgarity (and nudity) (1) on broadcast radio and TV (2) when the speech is offensive because of its form and not the because of the opinion or viewpoints it expresses
Broadcast receives least amount of 1A protection bc it involves content streamed into homes and violates individuals right to be left alone
–this rational does not extend to internet (Reno)
Watts v United States
D drafted into war and at protest against war, threatened that if military forced a gun into his hands the first person he would shoot is the president.
HELD: 1A does not protect threats but political hyperbole OK. Take into consideration the context (conditional nature of statement, laughter of listeners)
NAACP v Claiborne Hardware
NAACP organized boycott of white businesses and persuaded people to join through social pressures (like publishing the names of people who shopped at white businesses)
HELD: threat of social ostracism is protected under 1A, doesn’t lose protection just bc it embarrass or coerces others into action
Virginia v Black
statute makes it illegal to burn a cross if done with intent to intimidate someone, but states that burning of cross is prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate
HELD: 1A violation b/c doesn’t distinguish btw cross burning performed to intimidate and other types, statute is too broad
Peel v Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of Illinois
HELD: attorney’s advertising as ‘certified specialist’ by bona fide org protected by 1A, state can’t ban bc its not actually or inherently misleading. Consumers would reasonably understand that certifications are awarded by private parties [not state]
Carey v Brown
ILL statute prohibited picketing in front of resident unless it involved a labor dispute
HELD: SS failed, overinclusive (restricts all non-labor picketing regardless of the effect on residential privacy) and underinclusive (labor picketing as likely to be detrimental to residential privacy as other types)
Republican Party v White
Statute prohibits candidates running for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues
HELD: SS failed
state interest in preserving impartiality of state judiciary, but law not narrowly tailored b/c it just makes candidates silent about their personal political views
Florida Star v BJF
BJF reported rape and robbery to sheriff, official report with her name prepared and put in press room where it was seen by FL star and published w her name. FL statue banned publishing of rape victims name.
HELD: fails SS
too much chilling effect on media when they can’t trust material given to them by gov to publish, overinclusive b/c applies where victim is already known in community, underinclusive b/c does not consider this info being disseminated in other ways
Brown v Entertainment Merchants Assn
CA law prohibits sale/rental of violent video games to minors
HELD: fails SS
no evidence of causation btw games and violence,
underinclusive bc parent can still purchase and give to child, overinclusive bc abridges parent’s rights who think violent games are harmless
Holder v Humanitarian Law Project
fed law prohibited giving of ‘material support or resources’ to certain foreign organizations designated as terrorists
HELD: SS passed
gov interest in combatting terrorism is compelling, not overinc b/c even training on ‘how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes’ and ‘how to petition the UN’ can help terrorist practices by freeing up resources, lending legitimacy, helping terrorists buy time and get financial aid
