COMM 1174 Lecture Notes - Lecture 19: Imminent Lawless Action, Entertainment Law, Understanding Media
22 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Guest Speaker.
Free Speech and 1st Amendment
1 aspect of 1st amendment law
- Measures of dangerous speech
o From clear and present danger to current standard: incitement to violence
▪ Directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to
incite or produce such action
▪ What ostitutes iitig iolee
▪ 1st amendment is crucial in understanding media.
o Incitement to violence standard=illegal form of speech
▪ Limitation used to be clear and present danger standard. If a country in the
time of war, the gov could prevent you from saying whatever you could.
Clear and present danger from 1818 to 1969.
▪ Difficulty with clear and present danger was so vague, that the government
was allowed to censor pretty much anything
▪ The courts continue to interpret and reinterpret what is protected speech
o Incitement to violence: directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action
and is likely to incite or produce such action
o Adoatig iolee is okay… soethig should e doe
o Inciting violence is not okay
o Ope to iterpretatio… ourts deide
o Line between expression and action
Ethan speaking (graduate study)
- Media law
Ways of knowing about free speech
-cultural model
-linear model
-legal model
Types of theories of free speech
1. Purely normative
a. Is this law justifiable?
2. Purely empirical
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Limitation used to be clear and present danger standard. If a country in the time of war, the gov could prevent you from saying whatever you could. Clear and present danger from 1818 to 1969: difficulty with clear and present danger was so vague, that the government was allowed to censor pretty much anything, the courts continue to interpret and reinterpret what is protected speech. Incitement to violence: directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action: ad(cid:448)o(cid:272)ati(cid:374)g (cid:448)iole(cid:374)(cid:272)e is okay (cid:862)so(cid:373)ethi(cid:374)g should (cid:271)e do(cid:374)e(cid:863) Inciting violence is not okay: ope(cid:374) to i(cid:374)terpretatio(cid:374) (cid:272)ourts de(cid:272)ide, line between expression and action. Types of theories of free speech: purely normative. Is this law justifiable: purely empirical, just the facts, mixed normative/empirical. Is the us supreme court correct in its jurisprudence to claim that it is harder for congress to regulate speech than to regulate other activity? (e. g. , polluting factories)
