1. Prior restraint
    • government stopping speech before it has been published.
    • AKA censorship.
  2. Near v. Minnessota
    • Law that allowed the gov. to forbid publication of some newspapers was overturned 5-4.
    • the court said that newspapers may not be censored before publication except under very exceptional circumstances.
  3. New York Times v. U.S.
    "pentagon papers"
    • the gov. sough to censor major newspapers to prevent them from publishing secret documents that would 'endanger natinal security'
    • the information was publishing facts that questioned 4 presidents.
    • SC vored 6-3 to set aside prior restraint and allow the publication of the information.
  4. U.S. v the progressive
    • H-bomb case.
    • article was published on other newspapers before it could reach the courts, and the gov dropped its attemps to censor the magazine article.
  5. U.S. v Machetti / Snepp v U.S.
    • Machetti- turned in his work for review by the CIA. Wasn't heard by the SC. 27-166 passages were supressed.
    • Snepp- he didn't not turn in his book for review, therefore the court ordered him to turn in all the information he had written and proffit because prior approval was required by his contract.
  6. U.S. v National treasury employees
    • the court said that the ban on federal employees receiving pay for writing articles or giving speehes was broad and violated the first amendment.
    • lower level employees could not be barred from accepting payments for speeches and articles.
  7. Hatch Act
    • overtuned.
    • the act prohibited most partisan political activities by federal employees.
    • the amendment to the act, allows most federal workers to participate in political campaigns, fund-raising and hold positions in political parties - on their own times.
    • other federal workers, like those in law enforcement and national seciruty are still barred from such activities.
  8. garcetti v ceballos
    speech by a supervisor against an employee (allegations of wrongdoing) are protected if they are not a part of their official duties.
  9. chaplinsky v New Hampshire
    • hate speech.
    • the courts can restrict speech that can cause violence- a breach of speech.
    • however, this does not mean that people can't express their views of racial, religious or gender based-hostilities. Banning that would be against the first amendment.
  10. brandenburg v. ohio
    • kkk leader made a speech at a raly. it did not cause any imminent danger of violent action.
    • hate speech
  11. wisconsin v. mitchell
    • mississippi burning case.
    • some african american kids watched that movie and then attacked a white boy. the attacker got convicted for aggravated battery.
    • "a physical assalt is not expressive product protected by the first ammendment.
  12. virginia v. black
    flag burning in a persons yard to intimidate anyone is not protected by the first amendment. however, burning in an open field at a rally is symbolic speech and therefore protected.
  13. US v Eichman
    flag burning is a protected symbolic form of speech.
  14. RAV v St. Paul
    • burning of a cross in front of someone's yard.
    • this is unconstitutional because its goal is to cause intimidation.
  15. time, place, manner restrictions
    a content-neutral regulation that regulates the time, place and or manner of speech acts.
  16. controls on literature distribution
    jahova's witnesses
    groups wishing to express controversial views can't be censored by the gov. through other laws prohibiting ditribution of literature or anything else.
  17. schneider v. new jersey
    • a group can't be punished if their pamphlet is thrown away later on by someone else.
    • door-to-door does not require permissions because the gov. can't censor groups they favor, while not allowing others they dont agree with to distribute information door to door.
  18. amalgamated food employees local 590 v logan valley plaza
    • shopping centers are not allowed to prohibit picketting if the case involves their users, or a shop in the mall.
    • the more the center opens its doors for use by the public, the more the shopping center has to follow the rules that it's customers follow.
  19. pruneyard shopping center case conclusion.
    it is up to the state legislatures and courts to decide whether to grant literature distribution rights in private places similar.
  20. Freedom Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act)
    prohibits protesters from blocking access to abortion clinics or intimidating patients and employees.
  21. floating buffer zones
    • allowed because they protect the free flow of traffic and public safety.
    • related to abortion clinics...15 ft.
  22. defamation
    a false intentional writen or spoken communication that injures a person's reputation.
  23. libel
    • writen defamation.
    • cases are usually state cases, not federal.
  24. slander
    spoken defamation
  25. actual malice
    in a libel statement, the satatement is made with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth; a high burden of proof for fault that falls on plaintiffs who are public officials or public figures.
  26. negligence
    in a libel case, a statement made carelessly or without exercise of normal care in verification; a lower burden of proof for fault that falls on plaintiffs who are private figures.
  27. Elements of Libel
    false intentional communication that injures a person's reputation
  28. Elements of Libel
    can be accomplished by a name or any other information that sufficiently identifies a person.
  29. Elements of Libel
    to someone other than the perpetrator or the victim
  30. Elements of Libel
    includes falsity as is measured as actual malice or negligence
  31. Elements of Libel
    tangible or intangible losses that can be financially compensated.
  32. Defenses to Libel
    strong defense because the burden of proof is on the plaintif to probe falsity
  33. Defenses to Libel
    also konwn as qualigied privilege, given to accurate accounts of proceedings of public meetings or materials in public records.
  34. Defenses to Libel
    fair comment
    statement of actual opinion (not provably false facts)
  35. libel per se
    • the actual words will hurt a persons reputation.
    • calling someone a murderer or a rapist.
  36. libel per quod
    when additional information needs to be provided to understand that defamation has taken place.
  37. gertz v welch
    set up two levels of fault for the media: negligence and actual malice
  38. ny times v sullivan
    • alabama case.
    • public officials who sue for libel or slander must prove acutal malice.
  39. qualified privilege
    • a libel defense that allows the media to report on government proceedings and records without fear of libel suit, as long as they give a fiar and accurate account.
    • information coming from public gov meetings or what is contained in public records.
Card Set
Media Law Test 2