Download
1 / 45
450 likes | 648 Views
Court cases. November 21,2013. Hazelwood School District v. Kulmeier. Background .
E N D
Court cases November 21,2013
Background • The court held that educators did not offend the 1st amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were, “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns” the actions of principle Reynolds, the court held, met this test. The spectrum, the school sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood east High School, written and edited by students. In may 1983, Reynolds, the school principle, received proofs for the May 13 issue. He found 2 articles to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeir and 2 other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.
Did the principals deletion of the articles violate the students rights under the 1st amendment?
Decision 5 votes for Hazelwood and 3 votes against. The court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'" Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
Background • Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for verbally assaulting a Police officer and convicted under a New Hampshire law that bands profane language in a public place. Chaplinsky appealed to the Supreme court saying it violated the 1st amendment.
Does the application of the statue violate Chaplinsky freedom of speech protected by the 1st amendment?
Decision • A unanimous vote (9-0) upheld his conviction (guilty). Murphy wrote Lewd, profane, and “Frighting” words are classes of speech that are not protected under the constitution.
Background • Wisconsin Right to Life, a nonprofit political advocacy corporation, ran three advertisements encouraging viewers to contact two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees. WRTL intended to keep running the ads through the 2004 election, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibits corporate funds from being used for certain political advertisements in the 60-day period prior to an election. WRTL sued the Federal Election Commission, claiming that the BCRA was unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements. In 2006, the Supreme Court let the "as applied" challenge proceed. In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the Court had upheld Congress's power to regulate "express advocacy" ads that support or oppose political candidates, but WRTL claimed that its ads were "issue ads" rather than express advocacy. WRTL also argued that the government lacked a compelling interest sufficient to override the corporation's First Amendment free speech interest. The FEC countered that WRTL's ads were "sham issue ads," which refrain from explicitly endorsing or opposing a candidate but are intended to affect an election.
Is the BCRA ban on the use of corporate treasury funds for political advertising in the 60 days before an election unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements that do not explicitly endorse or oppose a candidate?
Decision • 5-4 The court ruled that BCRA's limitations on political advertising were unconstitutional as they applied to issue ads like Wisconsin right to life's.
Background • The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) applies only to material displayed on the World Wide Web, covers only communications made for commercial purposes, and restricts only "material that is harmful to minors." Moreover, COPA requires jurors to apply "contemporary community standards" in assessing material. Before it was scheduled to go into effect, a number of organizations affected by COPA filed suit, alleging that the statute violated adults' First Amendment rights because it effectively banned constitutionally protected speech, was not the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling governmental purpose, and was substantially overbroad. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction. In affirming, the Court of Appeals, reasoning that COPA's use of contemporary community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors rendered the statute substantially overbroad.
Does the child online protection act COPA violate the First Amendment by restricting access to protected speech?
Decision • 5-4 the Court held that COPA's reliance on community standards to identify what material is harmful to minors does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes. The Court expressed no view as to whether COPA was overbroad for other reasons or was unconstitutionally vague and did not vacate the preliminary injunction because it could not do so without addressing matters yet to be considered.
Background • Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "leftwing manifesto" called for establishment of socialism. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute penalized utterences without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The New York courts had decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law.
Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of first amendment?
Decision • Ruled that Gitlowwas guilty, New York abused their powers, but Gitlow was still guilty.
Background • 1986-At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days.
Does the First Amendment prevent school districts from disciplining a high school for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?
Decision • 7-2 The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the supposed sexual content of Fraser's message at the assembly. Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."
Background • In early 2002, a many years-long effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way that money is raised for--and spent during-- political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. Its key provisions were a) a ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties and on the solicitation of those donations by elected officials; b) limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election; and c) restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidate. The campaign finance reform bill contained an unusual provision providing for an early federal trial and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, by-passing the typical federal judicial process. In May a special three-judge panel struck down portions of the Campaign Finance Reform Act's ban on soft-money donations but upheld some of the Act's restrictions on the kind of advertising that parties can engage in. The ruling was stayed until the Supreme Court could hear and decide the resulting appeals.
Does congress’ loan on “soft money” with the campaign finance reform act, go beyond their power granted by the constitution?
Decision • No with a vote of 5 to 4, reasoned with the corruption from corporations that could occur.
Background • January 2008, Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, released a 90 minute documentary entitled Hillary. The movie expressed whether Hillary Clinton was fit for the presidency. To pay for video-on-demand and advertisements for the movie Citizens United was going to use it's general treasury funds. But federal law prohibits corporations and unions to use these funds on electioneering communications. Citizens United argued that this violates the First Amendment and that Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.
Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisement at issue in the McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?
Decision • 5-4 Decision Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. They found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make election related Independent expenditures. So this struck federal law banning this practice and overruled two of its prior decisions.
Background • In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.
Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal election campaign act of 1971, and related provisions of the internal revenue code of 1954, violate the 1st amendments freedom of speech and association clauses?
Decision • 7 for Buckley 1 against; it was decided that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns did not violate the 1st amendment and found that governmental restrictions of independent expenditures and campaigns did violate the 1stamendment.
Background • A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed.
Does the 1st amendments freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering motional disaster?
Decision • (8-0), Yes. In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.
Background • Brandenburg invited a reporter to a KKK meeting where he was recorded being very racist. He was convicted and sentenced to 1 to 10 years in prison when he appealed they reject.
Did Ohio's criminal Syndicalism law, prohibition public speech that advocates various illegal activities violate Brandenburg's right to free speech?
Decision • 8 votes for Brandenburg 0 against him, they ruled that Ohio law violated the 1st amendment.
