APAG Ch. 4 Civil Liberties Assignment

1
APAG Ch. 4 Civil LibertiesAssignment 2

• Pages 117 - 126

2

• 1. What did Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes say
  about restricting free speech in Schenck v.
  United States (1919)?

3

• Restrictions on free speech are permissible only
  when speech presents a clear and present danger
  to the public.

4

• 2. What did Justice Louis D. Brandeis say about
  the clear and present danger test in Schaefer v.
  United States (1920)?

5

• If correctly applied, it will reserve the right
  of free speechfrom suppression by tyrannists,
  well-meaning majorities, and from abuse by
  irresponsible, fanatical minorities.

6

• 3. What is the bad-tendency rule? Where did it
  come from?

7

• It is a rule stating that speech or other First
  Amendment freedoms may be curtailed if there is a
  possibility that such expression might lead to
  some evil.
• It came from the decision in Gitlow v. New York.

8

• 4. Describe what happened in the Gitlow case.

9

• A member of a left-wing group was convicted of
  violating New York States criminal anarchy
  statute when he published and distributed a
  pamphlet urging the violent overthrow of the U.S.
  government.

10

• 5. What rule was established by the Supreme
  Court in Dennis v. United States (1951)? How did
  it affect free speech?

11

• The rule applied a grave and probable danger
  rule. This rule, the gravity of the evil
  discounted by its improbability justifies such
  invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid
  the danger.
• This rule gave much less protection to free
  speech than did the clear and present danger test.

12

• 6. What rule came from the Brandenburg v. Ohio
  (1969) case? How did it affect free speech?

13

• It provided for the incitement test. The court
  held that the guarantee of free speech does not
  permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy
  of the use of force or of law violation except
  where such advocacy is directed to inciting or
  producing imminent lawless actions and is likely
  to incite or produce such action.

14

• 7. What is prior restraint?

15

• Restraining an action before the activity has
  actually occurred. It involves censorship, as
  opposed to subsequent punishment.

16

• 8. Describe the significance of these three
  cases
• A) Near v. Minnesota (1931)
• B) Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)
• C) New York Times v. United States (1971)

17

• A) In Near v. Minnesota, the Court established
  as a constitutional principle the doctrine that,
  with some narrow exceptions, the government could
  not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in
  advance, even though the communication might be
  punishable after publication in a criminal or
  other proceeding (prior restraint)

18

• B) In the Nebraska case, the Court stated that a
  prior restraint comes to this Court with a heavy
  presumption against its constitutionalityThe
  government thus carries a heavy burden of
  showing justification for the enforcement of such
  a restraint.

19

• C) The New York Times case involve the Pentagon
  Papers, a document critical of the U.S.
  involvement in the Vietnam War. The government
  argued against its publication on the grounds of
  national security. The Court upheld the prior
  restraint rule and allowed the publication.

20

• 9. What is symbolic speech? Give examples.

21

• Symbolic speech is nonverbal expression of
  beliefs, which is given substantial protection by
  the courts. Examples include gestures,
  movements, articles of clothing, burning of the
  flag, etc.

22

• 10. What did the Supreme Court say in these
  cases concerning symbolic speech?
• A) Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)
• B) Texas v. Johnson (1989)
• C) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota (1992)

23

• The Court ruled that students could wear black
  arm bands to protest the Vietnam War.
• The Court ruled that burning of the American flag
  is a form of symbolic speech and is protected.

24

• C) The Court ruled that a city statute banning
  bias-motivated disorderly conduct (burning a
  cross in anothers front yard as a gesture of
  hate) was a unconstitutional restriction of
  speech.

25

• 11. How did Justice Potter Stewart define
  obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio?

26

• I know it when I see it

27

• 12. What are the requirements established by
  Miller v. California for a material to be
  considered legally obscene?

28

• 1) The average person must find it violates
  contemporary community standards.
• 2) The work taken as a whole appeals to a
  prurient interest in sex.
• 3) The work shows patently offensive sexual
  conduct.
• 4) The work lacks serious redeeming literary,
  artistic, political, or scientific merit.

29

• 13. According to the Court in the Miller case,
  who defines prurient interests? What problem
  does this cause?

30

• The definition is left to community standards.
• The problem is that a work of art in New York or
  California would put you in jail in Florida.

31

• 14. How tough has the Supreme Court been on
  child pornography?

32

• It has been very tough. It has upheld state laws
  making it illegal.

33

• 16. How has the Court ruled about pornography on
  the internet? Has these decisions been good or
  bad for us?

34

• The Court has ruled almost all restrictions of
  the internet as unconstitutional.
• This has protected our access to information that
  may have been blocked by the government.

35

• 16. What is defamation of character? What is
  the difference between slander and libel?

36

• Defamation of character is wrongfully hurting a
  persons good reputation.
• Slander is the public uttering of a false
  statement that harms the good reputation of
  another.
• Written defamation is libel.

37

• 17. What are fighting words and hecklers
  veto? What has the Court said about them?

38

• Fighting words are words that are uttered by a
  public speaker that are so inflammatory that they
  could provoke the average listener to
  violenceusually of a racial, religious, or
  ethnic type.
• Hecklers veto is boisterous and generally
  disruptive behavior by listeners to public
  speakers that is essence vetoes the public
  speakers right to speak.
• Both have been prohibited by the Court.

39

• 18. What did the Court say about student
  activities fees charged to students even when the
  students objected to the cause the fees went to
  support?

40

• The Court stated that the university may
  determine that its mission is well served if
  students have the means to engage in dynamic
  discussions of philosophical, religious,
  scientific, social and political subjects in
  their extracurricular life. If the university
  reaches this conclusion, it is entitled to impose
  a mandatory fee to sustain an open dialogue to
  these ends.

41

• 19. How has the Court ruled about freedom of
  speech and campus codes of behavior? What have
  universities around the campus done about these
  codes? What do the critics say about them?

42

• The Court has generally ruled these codes
  unconstitutional. But, they remain on the books
  of many universities around the country. Critics
  argue that they protect liberal causes, but
  punish conservative causes.

43

• 20. Has the Court ruled against hate speech on
  the internet? Why or why not?

44

• It is virtually impossible for the Supreme Court
  to rule on hate speech on the internet because it
  is an international vehicle to disseminate
  information.

45

• 21. What are other ways to libel someone besides
  in writing?

46

• Pictures, signs, films, or any other
  communication that has the potentially harmful
  qualities of written or printed words.

47

• 21. When it comes to libel, what is the
  difference between private individuals and public
  figures (public officials, movie stars, and
  generally all persons who become know to the
  public because of their positions or activities)?

48

• For public figures, in order to sue for libel,
  they must prove
• The statement was made with actual
  malicethat is, with either knowledge of its
  falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

49

• 22. What is a gag order? What did the Court
  rule about them in Nebraska Press Association v.
  Stuart (1976)?

50

• It is an order issued by a judge restricting the
  publication of news about a trial in progress or
  a pretrial hearing in order to protect the
  defendants right to a fair trial.
• The Court declared the gag order in this case
  unconstitutional.

51

• What did the Court rule about the publics right
  to attend a trial in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.
  Virginia (1980)?

52

• Actual trials must be open to the public except
  under unusual circumstances.

53

• 24. Why are radio and television broadcasts more
  limited in their rights to freedom of speech?

54

• Because the government owns the airwave
  frequencies and regulates them with the FCC
  (Federal Communications Commission). Thats why
  cable stations like HBO can have more provocative
  shows.

55

• 25. What is the Equal Time Rule? The Personal
  Attack Rule?

56

• The Equal Time Rule is a FCC regulation that
  requires broadcasting stations that give or sell
  air time to political candidates to make equal
  amounts of time available to all competing
  candidates.
• The Personal Attack Rule is a FCC regulation that
  requires broadcasting stations, if the stations
  are used to attack the honesty or integrity of
  persons, to allow the persons attacked the
  fullest opportunity to respond.