Landmark Supreme Court Cases in First Amendment Law, Quizzes of Communication and Development studies

Download Landmark Supreme Court Cases in First Amendment Law and more Quizzes Communication and Development studies in PDF only on Docsity! TERM 1 FDA v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co (2000) DEFINITION 1 USSC: FDA exceeded statutory authorityFDA said couldn't put tobacco ads near schools, playgroundsTobacco products not in FDA's jurisdiction at the time TERM 2 Comcast v FCC (2009) DEFINITION 2 USSC: FCC acted arbitrarilyFCC capped cable company's national market shareTHere was no proof that a cable operator with greater than 30% share would be a threat to competition TERM 3 FOX TV Stations Inc v FCC (2002) DEFINITION 3 USSC: FCC acted arbitrarilyFCC said could own 2 TV stations but not a TV station and a cable stationThat is illogical TERM 4 Colorado Republican Campaign Committee v FEC (1996) DEFINITION 4 USSC: FEC - unconstitutionalCO ran an ad on the radio, FEC wanted to punishUSSC said political party's ad expenditures are constitutuionally protected as long as money isn't associated with a candidate TERM 5 Richmond Newspapers v Virginia (1980) DEFINITION 5 USSC voted 7-1 that 1st amnd requires open trials, but no more than 3 justices agreed to an opinion why (needed 5) -- plurality = draft with the most support TERM 6 NYT v US (1971) DEFINITION 6 Pentagon PapersUSSC voted 6-3 that NYT could publish secret defense studyIssued per curiam opinion - papers could be published because government didn't meet its heavy burden of proof TERM 7 Gitlow v NY (1925) DEFINITION 7 USSC: for present purposes assume freedom of speech and press are among fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by due process in 14th Amnd from impairment of stateGitlow published Socialest manifesto urging gov't overthrow -- convicted in NYIncorporationCited bad tendency test TERM 8 Near v Minnesota (1931) DEFINITION 8 USSC: Prior restraint unconstiutional because of due process in 14th AmendmentNear published in his newspaper saying every bad person was a Jew - injunction to bar him from publicationIncorporation TERM 9 Forsyth Co v Nationalist Movement (1992) DEFINITION 9 Gov't can't arbitrarily propose a fee on parade or what fee will be (can't vary) -- unconstitutionalMust have due process - consistency TERM 10 McIntyre v Ohio Elections Committee (1995) DEFINITION 10 OH said you can't distribute political literature anonymouslyUSSC used strict scrutiny to strike downOverbroad - doesn't present libel and fraud, doesn't pose risk to Democratic process TERM 21 Dennis v US (1951) DEFINITION 21 Dennis convicted of belonging to Communist partyPlurality - Dennis presented no clear and present dangerBut upheld conviction -"Government need not wait to stop speech" TERM 22 Yates v US (1957) DEFINITION 22 Conspiracy to overthrow governmentUSSC: Too far removed from immediate dangerOnly found a clear and present danger if it advocates direct illegal action TERM 23 Brandenburg v OH (1969) DEFINITION 23 Brandenburg - KKK - said revengeance on 4th of JulyConvicted of racist provocations by OHUSSC: overturned conviction, only "mere advocacy" of illegal action at "some distant time" TERM 24 Hess v Indiana (1973) DEFINITION 24 USSC overturned conviction of demonstrator for shouting "we'll take the street later" on a campusSome indefinite future time TERM 25 US v Fullmer (2009) DEFINITION 25 Huntingdon CaseAnimal rights group targets Huntingdon Life Sciences with harassment, vandalism, cyber attacks, threatsUSSC: upheld convictionsTrue threats TERM 26 US v Stevens (2010) DEFINITION 26 USSC refused to add depictions of animal cruelty to unprotected speechStatute used to prosecute crush videos was overbroad (it'd be illegal to depict lawful hunting) TERM 27 Tinker v Des Moines School District (1969) DEFINITION 27 Black wrist bandsUSSC rules black wrist bands are protected speech -- symbolic and silent TERM 28 Buckley v Valeo (1976) DEFINITION 28 "Government can't restrict the voice of some to enhance the voice of others"Contributions are protected speech TERM 29 Chaplinsky v NH (1941) DEFINITION 29 Called marshal names, marshal didn't strikeCourt said words were enough to provoke violenceOriginated "fighting words" doctrine (unprotected) TERM 30 Cohen v California (1971) DEFINITION 30 USSC overturned ruling that jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" was fighting wordsNo immediate danger, no direct personal insult TERM 31 RAV v City of St. Paul (1992) DEFINITION 31 Kid convicted after burning cross in black couple's yard -- ordinance prohibited symbols if it aroused anger, alarmUSSC: ordinance was unconstitutional content regulation - only prohibited fighting words based on race, creed, religion, gender, but permits hate speech for political party, etcCan't impose special prohibitions on speakers b/c of disfavored subject TERM 32 Hayward v US (1993) DEFINITION 32 Whites had blacks over for holidays, Hayward burned crosses in their yardCourt said burning cross in a private yard presented imminent physical danger - fighting words TERM 33 Watts v US (1969) DEFINITION 33 Watts was subject to the draft - said he might kill LBJUSSC: not a true threat, only political speech TERM 34 NAACP v Claiborne Hardware (1982) DEFINITION 34 Civil rights leader warned blacks they'd have necks broken if they traded with whitesProtected speech - didn't lose protection b/c it embarassed people or coerced them into action TERM 35 Virginia v Black (2003) DEFINITION 35 USSC: states may prohibit cross burning if purpose is to intimidate (true threat)Protected if not meant to intimidate (ex: film) TERM 46 Shuttlesworth v City of Birmingham (1969) DEFINITION 46 Birmingham paradeordinance- city commissioner could deny permits considered harmful to public welfare, morale, etcUSSC: commission can't dispense/withhold permits according to own opinions TERM 47 Cox v NH (1941) DEFINITION 47 Court ruledconstitutionalthat law didn't allow government officials to withhold license if they disliked message TERM 48 City of Lakewood v Plain Dealer Publishing Co (1988) DEFINITION 48 USSC struck down ordinance requiring publishers to obtain a permit annually from the mayor before placing newsracks on public sidewalks TERM 49 Thomas v Chicago Park District (2002) DEFINITION 49 Court sustained ordinance requiring individuals to obtain a permit before holding large-scale events in public parksWas content-neutral TERM 50 Mutual Film Corp. v Industrial Comm'n of OH (1915) DEFINITION 50 Upheld statute requiring film licensingOnly films of moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character could be exhibitedDidn't yet incorporate 14th & 1st (Gitlow, 1925) TERM 51 Joseph Burnstyn Inc v Wilson (1952) DEFINITION 51 Ny licensing statute prohibited exhibition of sacrilegious films gave censorship powers to gov't officialsUSSC motion pictures are important organs of public opinion - "capacity for evil" doesn't disqualify all motion pictures from 1st amnd protection TERM 52 Freedman v Maryland (1965) DEFINITION 52 Court found unconstitutjional a MD film licensing statute that lacked procedures to protect free expressionSystem of film licensing must contain: Burden of proof that film is unprotected expression must rest upon censor Any restraint prior to judicial review can be imposed only briefly A prompt judicial determination of a film's protected or unprotected status must be assured TERM 53 Red Lion Broadcasting Co v FCC (1969) DEFINITION 53 Court said the physical limitations of the electromagnetic spectrum justify government licensing of broadcastersNo 1st Amnd right to broadcastFree speech isn't violated TERM 54 Trinity Methodist Church, South v FRC (1932) DEFINITION 54 FRC's refusal to renew Shuler's license because of defamatory and racist broadcasts didn't violate 1st amndHe could continue his attacks on public officialsi n other forums TERM 55 LA v Preferred Communications Inc (1986) DEFINITION 55 USSC: cable franchising process would be subject to constitutional scrutinyCable system operators have 1st amnd protectionCities can't award exclusive franchises on the basis of assertions about the need to minimize the demands on public property (prohibits competition and creates risk that cable operator would be captive to city hall) TERM 56 Minneapolis Star & Tribune v Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue (1983) DEFINITION 56 USSC struck down Minnesota tax on newspapers that used large amounts of ink and paperThreat of muting papers was enough TERM 57 Arkansas Writers' Project Inc v Ragland (1987) DEFINITION 57 USSC ruled that an Arkansas sales tax imposed on general- circulation magazines, but not on religious, etc, was unconstitutionally discriminatory TERM 58 Leathers v Medlock (1991) DEFINITION 58 USSC ruled that Arkansas could apply a sales tax to cable TV and satellite services while exempting print mediaTax wasn't based on content TERM 59 Simon & Schuster v NY State Crime Victims Board (1991) DEFINITION 59 Struck down Son of Sam law that prevented criminals from profiting from the story of his crimes, (made them give $ to victims)Violated 1st amnd -Discouraged creation of protected expressionWas too broad & narrow TERM 60 Smith v Daily Mail (1979) DEFINITION 60 USSC said that if a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful info about a matter of public significance then state officials may notconstitutionallypunish publicationA West Virginia statute made it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without approval of juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender. TERM 71 Garrison v Louisiana (1964) DEFINITION 71 Court reversed conviction of prosecutor Garrison who had accused judges of being lazy, inefficient, and vacation mindedCriminal prosecutions for criticism of public officials areunconstitutionalunless actual maliceThe assertion about the judges was comment about their official conduct -- public officials TERM 72 Cohn v NBC (1980) DEFINITION 72 Defamation of one person doesn't rub off on anotherSenate staff members close to Senator McCarthy couldn'tclaim they were defamed by a film disparaging the senator TERM 73 Tory v Cochran (2005) DEFINITION 73 A relative may be able to continue a libel suit filed by an individual who dies before suit is concludedUSSC said widow of Johnnie COchran could sub for him in libel suit TERM 74 Cerasani v Sony Corp (1998) DEFINITION 74 Court found Cerasani's reputation was so badly tarnished by his riminal crecord that his reputation could suffer no more harm -- couldn't sue producers of a filmLibel-proof TERM 75 Stern v Cosby (2009) DEFINITION 75 Fed judge refused summary judgment for book author who argued Anna Nicole Smith's former attorney and companion was lible proofHoward K. Stern had bad rep, but his rep could be further damaged by the book TERM 76 City of Chicago v Tribune Co (1923) DEFINITION 76 USSC backed Illinois SC's rejection of libel suit by City of ChicagoRight to criticize gov't -- too important TERM 77 Dun & Bradstreet Inc v Greenmoss Builders Inc (1985) DEFINITION 77 Greenmoss Builders won defamation suit when credit- reporting agency falsey said the company filed for bankruptcy -- not a matter of public concernPrivate libel plaintiffs don't have to prove actual malice to receive punitive damages TERM 78 Burnett v National Enquirer (1984) DEFINITION 78 Carol Burnett settled out of court after publicationfalsely reported she drank too much and as obnoxious -- could be libelousUnverified hearsay -- published with knowing falsehood TERM 79 Memphis Publishing Co v Nichols (1978) DEFINITION 79 TN SC said omissions in a newspaper so distorted the truth that the story libeled Nichols and her husband by falsely implying she was an adultererNichols failed to meet her burden of proof TERM 80 Liquori v Republican Co (1979) DEFINITION 80 Paper reported Anthony Liquori of Agawan plead guilty to somethingLibelous - wrong Antony Liquori identified in articleNegligence TERM 81 Zeran v AOL Inc (1998) DEFINITION 81 Court upheld ruling that Section 230 bars a libel suit against an ISP over third-party postings, even if the ISP is notified that libelous material has been posted TERM 82 NYT v Sullivan (1964) DEFINITION 82 USSC said for first time that 1st amnd protects criticism of govt officials even if remarks are false and defamatoryMust prove NYT actual malice TERM 83 Rosenblatt v Baer (1966) DEFINITION 83 Case defined "public official"Story critical of the way county- owned ski resort was run by Rosenblatt TERM 84 Ocala Star Banner Co v Damron (1971) DEFINITION 84 Damron (mayor) charged with perjury in the paperAny accusation of a public official's criminal charge is related to their fitness for office -- was a public figure. Had to prove actual malice TERM 85 Curtis Publishing Co v Butts (1967) DEFINITION 85 Court extends NYT malice requirement to public figures