Final Exam - Cases
Order by
87 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 Gitlow v. New York | extended 1st amendment protection by interpreting the 14th amendment as preventing limitation of speech by press, state, local, and regional governments |
| Marbury v. Madison | established the concept of judicial review; supreme court can determine actions of the other branches invalid based on constitutionality |
| Cohen v. California | reversed "offensive conduct" conviction of Cohen fro wearing a coat with "**** the draft"; expression was protect speech absent a compelling reason to prevent; political speech or expressive content based speech protected under strict scrutiny guideline |
| US v. O'Brien | burning of draft card; rule that expressive conduct could be restricted if it did not suppress expression, if it involved substantial government interest, and was no greater than necessary to achieve interest |
| Texas v. Johnson | flag burning against Texas Flag desecration law; ruled unconstitutional because aimed at expressive nature of burning, not actual conduct itself; met strict scrutiny test |
| Near v. Minnesota | prior restraint; state tried to stop publication of Near's newspaper that accused city of being overrun by jewish mob; Minn. gag law ruled unconstitutional because used prior restraint, can only accuse of libel after the fact |
| NY Times v. US (Pentagon Papers | published papers revealing decisions made during Vietnam war, government claimed it was a threat to national security; court ruled that stopping publication was unconstitutional and not a threat to national security, just an embarrassment; press is a watchdog for government |
| Tinker v. DesMonies | students wore black arm bands to school to protest the war, suspended; court ruled in favor of the students under freedom of expression, actions did not disrupt school functions or incite violence |
| Bethel SD v. Fraser | vulgar, offensive, obscene speech can be limited in public settings by schools |
| Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier | principal removed two newspaper articles about teen pregnancy and divorce; ruled in favor of the school because it was a non-public, school-funded, curriculum based publication |
| Kincaid v. Gibson | Kentucky U. administration blocked distribution of yearbook based on quality and content; unconstitutional, university students have rights like adults in professional media |
| Morse v. Frederick | "Bong Hits for Jesus"; ruled in favor of school because actions violated school anti-drug policy and reflected poorly on school |
| Layshock v. Hermitage SD | student wrote offensive things about administration on myspace page, believe that it is subject to school disciplinary authority even though it was done privately in the home; school district is appealing case |
| Doninger v. Niehoff | student wrote about administration online, punished and not allowed to run for student government, school district won because student's actions could cause disruption |
| Lovell v. Griffin | arrested for distributing pamphlets in violation of city ordinances; violation of 1st amendment - pamphlets under first amendment protection, protects distribution of written materials |
| US v. Eichmen/US v. Haggerty | flag burning; Flag Protection Act deemed unconstitutional, flag burning is an act of free expression |
| Gooding v. Wilson | fighting words laws must be restricted to words that have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person whom the remarks are made |
| Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party | American Nazis wanted to march in Skokie (large Jewish population); village tried to prevent the march arguing that the swastika was symbolic fighting words; march allowed |
| RAV v. St. Paul | burned a flag in the front yard of a black family and was charged for trespassing and damages; St. Paul ordinance which forbid display of burning cross, swastika, ect. deemed unconstitutional because it was content based |
| Virginia v. Black | state has the right to ban cross burning if it is done with intent to intimidate or incite violence, but it is allowed for ceremonial purposes |
| Schenck v. US | clear and present danger, man banned from publishing pamphlets encouraging boycott of draft, during wartime so it was considered a threat to national security |
| Brandenburg v. Ohio | government must distinguish between advocacy of ideas and incitement of unlawful conduct |
| NY Times v. Sullivan | actual malice; public officials must prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, press can keep government in check |
| Curtis v. Butts/AP v. Walker | expanded NYT ruling to include public figures in actual malice requirement; created test for reckless disregard of the truth in reporting (must show reliable sources, urgency, probability) |
| Gertz v. Welch | private persons must at least show simple negligence if accusing libel, states can rule for more proof but must at least include simple negligence; divided public figure into limited and total |
| Time v. Firestone | divorce case, wife claimed defamation, Time claimed she was a public figure; court said she was not a limited public figure because she did not thrust herself into public light voluntarily; clarified limited public figure |
| Milkovich v. Lorain Journal | article claimed coach lied under oath, coach sued for libel, court said even an opinion piece must consider object facts and factual connotation to not be considered fair comment |
| Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. | resulted in first law of privacy; illegal use of one's name of likeness for advertising or trade purposes without consent |
| Pavesich v. New England Life | Georgia was the first state to recognize the right of privacy in common law |
| Midler v. Ford | Ford used someone who sounded like Midler to sing promotional song for commercial purposes; impersonation not okay |
| Cox v. Cohn | reporter published the name of a rape victim and was charged, name was part of public record, GA law prohibited rape victim's names from being published; Supreme Court ruled GA law unconstitutional under the 1st and 14th amendments |
| Dietman v. Time | reporters when into a house undercover to expose a man illegally practicing unscientific medicine, and while there recorded the conversation and took pictures, doctor arrested; ruled in favor of plaintiff because photos were taken without knowledge or permission |
| Time v. Hill | false light claim when article published the pictures of a house to promote a play based on the family's hostage story, claiming it was commercial use; ruled that no actual malice was done, article portrayed the play as a re-enactment of the incident |
| Hustler v. Falwell | advertisement featured fake interview about defendant's "first time" with a disclaimer at the bottom; ruled that ad was in poor taste, but in satire wo it was protected |
| Zemel v. Rusk | early case regarding access to information; right to speak and publish does not include the right to gather information |
| Pell v. Procunier/Saxbe v. Washington Post | reporters have no right to access to prisoners or inmates beyond that of the general public |
| Houchins v. KQED | 1st and 14 amendments do not mandate right of access to government information; leaves access decisions up to the prison to decide, not rules by state or federal governments |
| Wilson v. Lane/Hanlon v. Berger | law enforcers inviting reporters to join on an arrest and gathering of information on private property is against the 4th amendment; ride-alongs okay in public places |
| Hauptman Trial | Courtroom packed with reporters and photographers; judge ordered no cameras or photos because it was disruptive, but one was snuck in anyway; ABA Canon 35 |
| Estes v. Texas | trial appealed because of distraction of cameras; 1st amendment did not give rights to take photos during trial; disruptive, harassment, lack of control for judges (in future, modern less intrusive cameras could be used) |
| Chandler v. Florida | precedent for use of cameras in the courtroom; court decides if cameras are allowed, trial by trial basis; if allowed, does not violate fair trial and if not allowed, does not violate 1st amendment |
| KQED v. Vasquez | upheld prohibition of TV coverage of executions |
| Sheppard v. Maxwell | wealthy doctor accused of killing pregnant wife, and while jailed media went to house and took pictures without permission, media very involved; court ruled that he did not receive a fair trial because the press was over involved; conviction overturned, retrial, found not guilty |
| Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart | must be clear and present danger to a defendant's right to a fair trial in order for a ban (gag) to be put in place |
| Gannett v. DesPasquale | court upheld banning reporter from a pretrial hearing |
| Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia | overruled Gannett; public had the right to attend criminal trials under the 1st amendment and only in extreme circumstances can they be closed, but allowed for the closure of pretrials |
| Press Enterprise v. Riverside Superior Court | public and press have the right to attend voir dire processes; open pretrial hearing except when substantial probability defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity and no other alternative would protect defendant's rights |
| Miller v. US | individual refused to reveal confidential sources, taken to jail; prompted congress to come up with the Free Flow of Information Act |
| Branzburg v. Hayes | journalist reported story on hash industry in KY using confidential sources and then called to testify against them in court and refused; court ruled that reporters do not have a right of confidentiality, no special privileges |
| Cohen v. Cowles | Cohen offered info to a reporter and was promised confidentiality but the editor overruled and published Cohen's name; Cohen sued for breach of contract; promissory estoppel does not violate the 1st amendment |
| US v. Dickinson | reporter ignored judge's gag order and printed a story, cited for contempt; court of appeals struck down gag order but upheld contempt citation |
| Miller v. Universal Studios | facts/research/news are not copyrightable, copyright protects the expression of facts, not the facts themselves |
| Fiest Publications v. Rural Telephone Service | telephone listings in phone books are not original works, and therefore not copyrighted |
| Eldred v. Ashcroft | upheld the Bono Act extending copyright terms |
| Basic Books v. Kinkos | copied and sold articles as college textbooks; ruled as infringement and hindering competition |
| Harper & Row v. Nation | publication of an excerpt from an unpublished book was ruled not fair use; book hadn't been published so it had greater protection and the piece copied was the heart and selling point of the book |
| Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music | group did parody on "Pretty Woman," court ruled parody was protected by fair use even though it was commercial |
| Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court | Mass. law could close a courtroom during a juvenile sex offense case, but it was not mandatory that it be closed |
| A&M Records v. Napster | peer to peer file sharing through a central server ruled as a contributory infringer and shut the program down |
| MGM v. Grokster | ruled that the act of distributing and promoting a product/software with the clear intent of fostering copyright infringement is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by others |
| Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition | ruled the CPPA invalid; Child pornography must involve actual children / not virtual or computer generated children |
| Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC | radio refused to give man a reply time to a commentator who attacked him; Ruled that the station has to provide response time and that the person responding may not be required to pay for the time |
| Miami Herald v. Tornillo | request for a space for rebuttal was refused by newspaper; ruled Florida right of reply law unconstitutional |
| Prometheus v. FCC | Appeals Court decision denied FCC regulation relaxing ownership rules, which had attempted to take national TV ownership limit to 45 percent. USSC denied cert, leaving the appeals court decision intact |
| CBS v. FCC | "must give reasonable and good faith attention to access requests to any candidate for federal office . . . in order to refuse must cite realistic danger of substantial program disruption due to insufficient notice or excessive number of requests" |
| Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC | upheld appeal of fairness doctrine |
| UCC v. FCC | ruled that listening groups have "standing" to participate in a renewal hearing; ruling reversed in later hearing |
| FCC v. Pacifica | "7 Dirty Words" monologue and words you can't say on TV; FCC upheld censuring Pacifica and . distinguished indecency from obscenity; provided a definition for indecency as language which describes in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs at times of the day when there is reasonable risk children may be in the audience, established safe harbor for broadcasting indecency now at 10 p.m. - 6 a.m. |
| Fox v. FCC | Court upheld the FCC's "fleeting expletives" policy of fining broadcasters for one-time spontaneous uses of curse words (the f-word and close cousins) |
| Butler v. Michigan | limiting adults to that which was safe for children was unconstitutional |
| Roth v. US | obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, and defined obscenity as that which to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material as a whole appeals to the prurient interest |
| Memoirs v. Massachusetts | test for obscenity developed: 1. The dominant theme of the material as a whole must appeal to the prurient interest in sex. 2. Court must find that the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters. 3. Utterly without social value. |
| Miller v. California | current definition of obscenity: 1. An average person, applying contemporary local [not national] community standards, finds that the work, taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. 2. The work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law. 3. The work in question lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. |
| Hamling v. US | jurors are to apply standards of the community and not base that standard on the most sensitive |
| Pinkus v. US | children are not to be considered in determining community standards |
| New York v. Ferber | relative to child pornography, provides that material which exploits children under 16 can be banned even if it does not meet the Miller test for obscenity; applies to live performances and depictions of live performances, not written or drawings |
| US v. Williams | uphold provisions of PROTECT Act |
| Reno v. ACLU | ruled unconstitutional those portions of the Communication Decency Act [CDA]; directed at indecent materials on the internet; Said only that which is obscene may be regulated |
| Ashcroft v. ACLU/Gonzales v. ACLU | ruled unconstitutional the Child Online Protection Act [COPA] |
| US v. American Library Association | upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] |
| Valentine v. Chrestensen | upheld a local ordinance banning the distribution of advertising pamphlets (even with expression of opinion on backside), declaring that advertising was not protected by the First Amendment at that time |
| Times v. Sullivan | ruled that editorial/political advertising is within First Amendment protection; did not include commercial advertising |
| Pittsburgh Press v. Pitts. Commission on Human Relations | cannot group help wanted classified by gender because considered discrimination based on sex |
| Bigelow v. Virginia | reversed the conviction of a newspaper editor for running an adv. offering abortion services, ruling that speech doesn't lose First Amendment protection just because it appears in the form of a commercial advertisement |
| Va. State Board of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council | Clearly establishes that commercial speech has First Amendment protection; However, that right is limited and not equal to protection of political speech |
| Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York | ruled unconstitutional a state ban on promotional advertising by electric utilities; Truthful advertising for legal goods and services may be regulated if: 1. the commercial message is misleading or related to unlawful activity 2. there is substantial state interest to justify 3. there is evidence that the regulation directly advances this interest. 4. there is a reasonable fit between the state interest and the governmental regulation |
| Hepps v. Philadelphia Inquirer | individuals suing the media for a damaging statement regarding matters of public concern is responsible for proving the statement false |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.