Free Speech quiz pt 2 Flashcards
What is Citizens United v. FEC?
(2010) CU tried to stop the FEC from apply the BCRA ( a act that attempts to regulate big money campaign contributions) to a movie they made about Hillary Clinton which talks about whether or not she’d make a good president. (past precedent: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce held that the gov could discriminate based on corporate identity overturned in whole, and Mcconnell v. FEC: held that disclosure requirements were constitutional (overturned in part)) The court sided with CU, 1st amen protects corps. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy. It said that under the 1st amen corporate funding of INDEPENDENT political stuff cannot be limited. Political speech is important/protected and thats not changed if its coming from a corporation. Court upheld that the BCRA’s disclosure requirements when applied to the movie were const. and that the ban on direct donations to candidates from corps/unions was cool. Justice Stevens dissented and said that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations’ ability to spend money during local and national elections.
What is NYT v. Sullivan?
(1964) NYT ran a ad that criticisized the Alabama police (didn’t name anyone), it had some minor factual inaccuracies. Sullivan sued for libel and got paid damages, it went to the SC. The SC unanimously sided with NYT (reversing the damages). Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion. It said that when a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel, they have to show “actual malice” which means it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity. Justice Black wrote a concurring opinion saying that the use of malice is to abstract of a standard to use for free speech.
What is Miller v. CA?
(1973) Miller sold adult books and films and sent out brochures for them. He was arrested when a couple took offense under a CA law banning dist of obscene materials. decision for Miller, majority opinion was written by Justice Burger. (Older prec rothv. U.S.) It said that obscene material are not protected by the 1st amen but established the Miller test: ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the lustful interest, work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (as defined by state law), whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
In a dissenting opinion Justice Brennan said that obscenity is very difficult to define but that regulating it to keep it from unconsenting adults and juveniles is fine.
What is Mahanoy v. B.L.
(2021) B.L., a student at Mahanoy Area High School (MAHS), tried out for and failed to make her high school’s varsity cheerleading team. Over a weekend and away from school, she posted a picture of herself on Snapchat with the caption “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything”. The coaches decided B.L. ‘s snap violated team and school rules, which B.L. had acknowledged before joining the team, and she was suspended from the junior varsity team for a year. (prec: Morse and TInker) 8-1 decision for B.L., majority opinion written by Judge Breyer: 1st amen limits regulation of off-campus student speech, B.L.’s speech in this case should have been handled by her parents, her speech did not cause substantial disruption, or threaten harm on others. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, An originalist understanding of the 1st amendment does not include student speech so Tinker v. Des Moines (and this case) should be overturned.
