-
-
-
-
-
-
Legal citation structure
ex) Adderly v. Smith 385 U.S. 39 (1966)
- >> Adderly = plaintiff (initiating lawsuit)
- >> Smith = defendant (responding)
- >> 385 = volume
- >> U.S. = source where decision can be found
- >> 39 = page where decision begins
- >> 1966 = year case was decided
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*Near v. Minnesota (1931)
- Jay Near published the Saturday Press. He claimed the Jews were in charge of organized crime in the city. He was declared a nuisance and an injunction was issued prohibiting future "scandalous matter"
- > First time the Supreme Court declared a state's prepublication stature as unconstitutional -- NEWSPAPER DECLARED ACCEPTABLE; thus, declaring all prior restraints as unconstitutional -- 1st amendment will also protect the unjust
-
NY Times v. US (1971)
- NY Times attempted to publish a series of stories based on a secret Pentagon study on the Vietnam War. aka the "Pentagon Papers" case.
- > First time US filed an injunction against a newspaper
- > 6-3 decision, US did not have enough proof to restrain the press
-
Grosjean v. American Press (1936)
- Governor Huey Long convinced Louisiana legislature to pass a license tax of 2 percent on the gross receipts of the state's newspapers
- > Supreme Court ruled a discriminatory state tax placed on newspapers of a certain circulation size was prior restraint
-
Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Minn. Commissioner of Revenue (1983)
- Minnesota decided to tax newspapers that used large amounts of ink and paper
- > Supreme Court determined that the tax was discriminatory against large papers and a prior restraint
-
Arkansas Writer's Project, Inc. v. Ragland (1987)
- Arkansas imposed a sales tax on general circulation magazines but NOT on religious, professional, trade, or sports journals.
- > Supreme Court declared tax was unconstitutionally discriminatory
-
Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (1971)
- A tv station reported the name of a rape victim which was in violation of a Georgia statute. The father brought a civil suit against the situation.
- > Supreme court ruled a state does NOT have the right to punish the media if the information was obtained in an open court room.
-
Landmark Communication, Inc. v. VA (1978)
- Virginian Pilot published the name of a judge being investigated for misconduct by the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. This action violated a state law.
- > Supreme Court declared that VA could not punish the media for publishing truthful information.
-
Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co. (1979)
- Two newspapers identified a 14 year old who shot and killed a classmate at a junior high school. Reporters obtained the name by asking witnesses, police, and attorney. The action violated a WVA statute.
- > Supreme Court ruled that the WVA statute was over-broad because it singled out only newspapers for punishment.
- > a state can punish the media for truthful information "to further a state's need of the highest order"
-
US v. Progressive (1979) District Court case
- A federal judge stopped the Progressive from publishing an article describing how to build an H-bomb. Even though the article was based on public information, it violated the Atomic Energy Act.
- > Fed. gov't DROPPED ITS SUIT after information similar to the Progressive's article was published elsewhere.
- > Gov't was successful in restraining the publication and ultimately altering the content of the article
-
Snepp v. US (1980)
- Frank Snepp published a book, Decent Interval. He violated his CIA contract by publishing before submitting the manuscript to the CIA.
- > Nondisclosure employment contracts are not a prior restraint and are not unconstitutional (CIA is correct)
- > Snepp's earnings from the book, movies, speeches, etc. go to "constructive trust" which revert to the government.
-
Morison v. US (1988)
- Samuel Morison, a civilian Navy analyst, was convicted in federal court of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. He passed a secret satellite photo of a soviet aircraft carrier to Jane's Defense Weekly.
- > Government may punish an individual for leaking national security information to unauthorized persons in peace time.
-
Florida Star v. BJF (1989)
- A reporter-trainee for the Florida Star acquired BJF's name (a rape victim) from a press release prepared by the sheriff's department. Her name was published in violation of a state statute.
- > Supreme Court ruled a media defendant cannot be punished for lawfully gained information; HOWEVER, if the statute was drawn more narrow, the media could be punished for publishing truthful information.
-
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
- Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention to protest the politics of the Reagan administration.
- > Burning of the US flag is protected by the Constitution as a symbolic form of speech.
-
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
- Robert A. Victoria was charged for burning a cross inside a fenced yard of the home of Russ and Laura Jones, a black couple. The 17-year-old was charged under a city ordinance.
- > Supreme Court declared a city ordinance which was based on "race, creed, religion, or gender" fighting words was unconstitutional content regulation.
-
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir (1988)
- Principal censored an article about teen pregnancies and divorce from the student newspaper
- > Public High School principals can censor High School newspapers (unlike college)
-
Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974)
- Miami Herald refused to publish a reply to the paper's criticism of Pat Tornillo, a candidate for the state legislature. The paper charged that Tornillo had led an illegal teachers' strike a few years earlier.
- > Newspapers have stronger First Amendment rights than electronic media
-
Regina v. Hicklin (1868)
Obscenity
- English litigation was the result of the distribution of an immoral publication. Pamphlet was anti-Catholic but prosecuted under the Obscene Publication Act of 1857.
- > Allowed isolated passage effect, uses a susceptible person standard. Came to be known as the "Hicklin Test"
-
Anthony Comstock
Obscenity
- > Advocated the adoption of the 1873 Comstock Act, which kept racy books/material off of shelves
- > appointed to enforce law; became the only censor of the time
-
US v. Ulysses (1934)
- Custom officials tried to stop the importation of James Joyce's Ulysses.> Federal judge in NY ruled that the literary or artistic merit of a work can be weighed against any incidental obscenity. Overturned the Hicklin test. > Criminal debate over obscenity of content.
-
Roth v. US and Alberts v. CA (1957)
Obscenity
- Roth was convicted for mailing an obscene book, circular, and advertising. Alberts was convicted for distribution of obscene books in CA.
- > Obscenity must be determined by the average person--overturned the over-broad Comstock Act--the work must be judged as a whole and obscenity is utterly without redeeming social importance.
-
Ginzburg v. US (1966)
Obscenity
- Ralph Ginzburg mailed a hardbound magazine along with two other periodicals. Advertising emphasized the erotic nature of his publications.
- > Ginzburg was guilty of pandering - advertising and promoting non-obscene material in an obscene way.
-
Memoirs v. Mass. (1966)
Obscenity
- John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure was ruled to be obscene
- > obscene work must be utterly without a redeeming social value
-
Redrup v. NY (1967)
Obscenity
- Redrup was prosecuted for distribution of "sexy" magazines
- > statutes concerning obscene materials must be specific and narrow in scope
-
Ginsberg v. NY (1968)
Obscenity
- Sam Ginsberg was convicted for selling porn to a minor.
- > established a variable standard of obscenity - one for adults and one for juveniles
-
Stanley v. GA (1969)
Obscenity
- Stanley was convicted for possession of obscene films found while police were searching his residence for illegal bookmaking
- > private possession of obscene material is permissible (though they cannot make, buy, or sell)
-
RICO (1970)
Obscenity
- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
- > 1984 amended to be used against obscenity and porn
- > can seize all "interests" connected to a racketeering enterprise
-
Miller v. CA (1973)
Obscenity
- Miller was convicted under state law for conducting a mass-mailing campaign to advertise four books and a film containing sexually explicit pictures and drawings.
- > Avg person, applying contemporary community standards
- > Scientific, Literary, Artistic, Professional Standards (SLAPS) - all parts must be met for a work to be obscene
-
Hamling v. US (1974)
Obscenity
- Hamling was convicted by the use of expert witnesses
- > Jurors may rely on their own knowledge of their community's standards
-
Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976)
Obscenity
- Detroit passed a zoning ordinance that prohibited adult bookstores/theaters from locating close to residential areas/churches/sexually oriented businesses
- > ruled "erogenous zones" are a valid way to control obscenity
-
NY v. Ferber (1982)
Obscenity
- Ferber was convicted for selling undercover police two films of young boys masturbating
- > there is a need to physically and emotionally protect the well-being of minors
-
Osoborne v. Ohio (1990)
Obscenity
- Ohio had a state law that made it a crime to view child pornography in own home. Osborne was arrested and convicted on a lower court and on appeal.
- > state's interest far exceeded what it characterized as GA's "paternalistic interest" in protecting the minds of adult viewers of porn
-
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
Obscenity
- ACLU challenged the Communication Decency Act (subsection of Telecom 96) as unconstitutional on its face
- > S Ct. ruled CDA was unconstitutional
-
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
Obscenity
- 1996 - congress adopted an amendment to fed. child porn law that barred sale and distribution of any images that "appear" to depict minors performing sexual acts
- > amendment ruled to violate 1st amendment
-
Child Pornography legislation
Obscenity
- 1977 - protection of children against sexual exploitation
- 1990 - child protection restoration and penalties enhancement act
- 1996 - child pornography prevention act
- 1996 - communication decency act (cda)
-
1977 - Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation
-
1990 - Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act
-
1996 - Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995 (CPPA)
-
1997 - Communication Decency Act (CDA)
-
1998 - Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
Restrict access to minors
-
2001 - Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) upheld in US v. ALA (2003)
If needed for RESEARCH, librarian can take block or filter off
-
PROTECT Act as amended to CPPA
-
Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004)
Obscenity
S Ct. upheld an injunction against COPA and determined that COPA was likely unconstitutional. Unconstitutional 1998.
-
Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (DOPA)
-
US v. Williams (2008)
Obscenity
- Williams challenged his pandering conviction constitutionally
- >conviction upheld
- >PROTECT act upheld by s ct.
|
|