COM 250 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Free Speech Coalition, Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act, Family Educational Rights And Privacy Act
30 Aug 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Fighting words and Hate Speech
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire !
-a Jehovahs Witness was passing out religious material and annoying passerby with his
speech!
-He called the arresting oļ¬cer names!
-convicted for speaking oļ¬ensively in public !
-SC upholds because NH has a speciļ¬c law against annoying words in public places!
FW Doctrine: !
-1. his speech has no value (it was worthless speech)!
-2. his speech will disturb the peace and therefore could cause the average person to
retaliate!
-3. His speech could lead to injury !
Feiner v. NY !
-addressed a crowd of people saying bad things about the president, and other gov.
authorities!
-arrested for breaching the peace !
-SC upholds conviction because his remarks cause a āclear and present dangerā under the
circumstances !
-Justice Black had a dissenting opinion: believed he should have been allowed to speak !
Terminello v. Chicago !
-a radical priest that was anti everything basically!
-started a riot and was convicted of disturbing the peace!
-Justice Douglas believed that is should be the violent people arrestedānot the speaker!
-Decision overturned by SC!
Dave Chappelle:!
-You canāt make words oļ¬ limits to only certain people in the SC$
- context is relative !
Cohen v. California !
-man walks into courthouse wearing a jacket that says āfuck the draftā !
-arrested for disturbing the peace !
-SC reverses decision !
-3 reasons for reversal !
1. government is not capable of setting standards for which words are ok/ not ok!
2. Language use has important motive content !
3. forbidding words carries substantial risk protected speech will eventually be suppressed !
Gooding v. Wilson !
-Wilson (black guy) blacked the entrance to a military recruiting station ā anti vietnam!
-Wilson screamed threats at the police !
-convicted by a Georgia law that prohibits abusive language!
-SC decides that police are not the average man so they should be able to restrain
themselves from using violence when threatened !
The Motherfucker Cases!
- SC decides the use of the word motherfucker is not ļ¬ghting words !
RAV v. City of St. Paul!
-teenagers mad that a black family moved into their neighborhood!
-burned a cross in their front yard!
-St. Paul convicts under a hate crime law!
-the SC throws out the case !
-they believe that you donāt need to target free speech when you can arrest the for
trespassing etc. !
-Scalia- by targeting FoS you open the door for gov. to limit speech!
TV station have the right to withhold episodes form airing if they believe it would oļ¬end a large
group!
Limiting Factors?!
- historical context of prejudice !
-can the speech actually inļ¬ict injury? emotional distress?!
-Virginia v. Black !
%-is a Virginia against cross burning violating the 1st Amendment!
%-No it was written with the history of cross burning in mind!
Campus Speech codes!
-public v. private !
-have attempted speech codes !
-its a very slippery slope!
Obscenity & Child Porn !
-obscene speech is not protected by the ļ¬rst amendment !
-it is considered to have low or no value!
Roth v. US!
-sent around obscene material !
-this idea had no āredeeming social importanceā !
-court ruled it was not protected by the 1st amendment !
-Test!
-To the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme
of the material taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests !
Memoirs v. Massachusetts !
-Massachusetts citizens upset by the contents of Fanny Hill!
-using the test in Roth v. US the SC ruled that this book was not obscene even if it bothered
some people !
Miller v. California (current law) !
-Miller sent a mass mailing campaign advertising adult material !
-He was convicted and SC decided that his material wasnāt protected by the 1st amendment !
-Test:!
-the average person based on contemporary community standards would ļ¬nd that the
work as a whole appeals to a prurient interest !
-whether the work depictits/describes in a potentially oļ¬ensive way sexual conduct
deļ¬ned by contemporary state law!
-lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientiļ¬c value !
Part B:!
- potentially oļ¬ensive representations of ultimate sexual acts (normal or perverted) !
- oļ¬ensive depictions of masturbation, excretory functions, etc. !
Document Summary
A jehovahs witness was passing out religious material and annoying passerby with his speech. Sc upholds because nh has a speci c law against annoying words in public places. 1. his speech has no value (it was worthless speech) 2. his speech will disturb the peace and therefore could cause the average person to retaliate. Addressed a crowd of people saying bad things about the president, and other gov. authorities. Sc upholds conviction because his remarks cause a clear and present danger under the circumstances. Justice black had a dissenting opinion: believed he should have been allowed to speak. A radical priest that was anti everything basically. Started a riot and was convicted of disturbing the peace. Justice douglas believed that is should be the violent people arrested not the speaker. You can"t make words o limits to only certain people in the sc. Man walks into courthouse wearing a jacket that says fuck the draft .
