Publisher of the Saturday Press was issued a restraining order on publication of his paper, based on his anti semetic language via a Minnesota statute.

Argument: The prior restraint put upon him was unconstitutional based on Near's rights from freedom of the press.

Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Near, stating that ALMOST all cases of government imposed prior restraint would be ruled against in court of law. Public figures who were wronged by his publications had other legal means (libel suits) to gain justice to their name.

Issued in the name of the court rather than specific judges

NY Times published gov. leaked "Pentagon Papers", government asked to stop publications.

Argument: Prior restraint on freedom of the press

Result: Despite Near's exceptions, the court ruled in favor of the NY Times based on a violation of prior restraint and freedom of the press.

Facts: Highschoolers wanted to publish an article on teen pregnancy, but the principal removed two pages.

Kids took him to court based on public forum.

Result: The court ruled in favor of the principal, based on a school basically being a "limited public forum" 

A reporter wrote an article detailing the making of "hashish" from marijuana. He was asked to testify before the Grand Jury, but refused.

Does the constitution allow a protection for reporters?

Result: No, the court found that reporters are no different that other citizens who could be called to testify on relevant information.

Facts: A Florida law required the press to publish articles by candidates for a political office when the paper criticized to attacked a candidate’s record. The idea was to make sure fair information was available to voters, on the grounds that the statute does not restrict the paper’s right to speak.

Result: The court in a 9-0 (unanimous) decision that the statute was in constitutional "for a responsible press is desirable, however, it is not mandated by the constitution, and thus cannot be legislated."

Facts: Red Lion challenged the FCC policy requiring radio and television broadcasters to discuss public issues on their stations and to provide fair coverage to each side of those issues, aka Section 315, the fairness doctrine.

Result: The court ruled in favor of the FCC, holding that the fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment, on the basis that the airwaves were scarce? WTF?

Facts: A radio station owned by the foundation broadcasted a program called "Filthy Words" by George Carlin, citing offensive, but not obscene words. A man complained to the FCC, who basically gave them a warning, pending further review and complaints.

Result: In favor of the FCC, holding that limited civil sanctions were allowed under the power given to the FCC. Also, Audience, medium, time of day, and method of transmission are relevant factors in determining whether to invoke sanctions. It doesn’t have to be obscene to be regulated apparently.

Facts: A Fox broadcast had two words FUCK and SHIT in the program, without bleeping. The FCC did not fine the station, but must have slapped them on the wrist, and Fox got mad.

Result:????

The Jaycees established a Junior Chamber of Commerce as a private, civic organization that helps young men participate in the affairs of their community. The group restricted regular membership to men ages 18-35. The Minnesota Dept. of human rights claimed that the organization’s exclusion of women violated a state law prohibiting sex based discrimination in public accomodations.

T

-This case established the degrees of protection.

-Small intimate relationships deserve more protection.

-Groups expressing sincerely held political or ideological messages are protected.

-Large groups with nonideological or commercial purposes and those with nonselective membership are less deserving of protections.

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston

Facts: A private association in Boston organized a St. Patrick’s Day parade, but rejected the application of a gay rights group who wanted to march. The gay right’s group sued, on the grounds that the rejection violated the Massachusetts antidiscrimination statute. The court ruled in favor of the parade organizers via the First Amendment is being violated by a state law requiring private sponsors to include among the marchers of a group a message that the private sponsors do not wish to convey.

Dale's adult membership was revoked in Boy Scouts for his homosexuality. The NJ Supreme court ruled in Dale’s favor, and the Boy Scouts asked the Supreme Court for review.

Ruling

The court found that the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression, and that the interest embodied in the state law do not justify such an intrusion on the Boy Scouts First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association.

Georgia statute made it a crime for any news media to publish or broadcast the name or identity of any female who may have been raped or upon whom an assault with intent to rape may have been made. A 17 year old girl was raped and suffocated at a party with six teenage boys. A reporter found her name in the indictments, as they are public documents. However in the news broadcast later that day included her name in the story. Her father filed suit as a violation of privacy, supported by the Georgia statute.

Result:

The court found that just as they cannot in most cases impose prior restraints, impose sanctions on the accurate publication of a rape victim obtained from judicial records that are open to public inspection.