Term
|
Definition
| 1. imminent 2. serious harm 3. likely to produce illegal consequences, and 4. intent to cause the illegal act |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1.personal 2. face-to-face 3. injurious 4. provocation to fight (IMP: court has never found this after Chaplinsky) |
|
|
Term
| Hostile Audiences in Public |
|
Definition
| 1.substantial privacy right invaded 2. in an essentially intolerable manner |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
applying community standards, it
1. appeals to the prurient interest, 2. depicts sexual conduct (as defined by statute) in a patently offensive way, and 3. lacks all serious literary, political, or scientific value |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. depicts children engaged in sexual conduct OR 2. lewd depictions of genitals
(IMP: doesn't matter if it has value; can't even possess it) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Limited protection b/c it's uniquely pervasive in terms of 1. piercing privacy and 2. reaching children (IMP probably not true anymore, but this was only a 2nd Circuit decision, so not overruled) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Opt-in is too burdensome
New technology means Pacifica is probably outdated |
|
|
Term
| Defamation of a Public Official/Figure |
|
Definition
| 1. Defamatory (injurious), 2. false, and 3. actual malice (knowing lie OR reckless disregard for truth) |
|
|
Term
| Defamation of a Private Person but a Matter of Public Concern |
|
Definition
| 1. Factual misstatement such that any reasonable editor/broadcaster would have been warned of defamatory potential, 2. negligence, and 3. damages limited to actual injury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Central Hudson
1. intermediate scrutiny, PLUS 2. regulation directly advances interest
(no more than necessarya fit (Liquormart)); court seems to be going back to no regulation approach (Sorrell) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Content neutral
2. narrowly tailored to further a significant gov't interest
3. leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of that info |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Purpose is wholly unrelated to speech
2. Regulation is meant only to fix certain secondary effects |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
O'Brien (Content+Speech)
1, Furthers important gov't interest
2. Interest is unrelated to suppression of free speech
3. The incidental restriction of speech is no greater than necessary
What? Flag burning, nude dancing, political contributions, armband, saluting flag, etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1.Substantially overbroad, 2. implicates non-offending people/behavior |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Connally (reasonable person would not be able to tell the scope of the law) |
|
|
Term
| Prior Restraints: Licenses |
|
Definition
| 1. Important reason for the regulation, 2. clear standards leaving government almost NO discretion, and 3. procedural safeguards |
|
|
Term
| Prior Restraints: Injunctions |
|
Definition
Presumptively void
1. Only in exceptional cases (probably CURRENT national security), and 2. narrow tailoring |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If YES, then must be 1. content-neutral, and 2. meet strict scrutiny
If NO, then must be 1. viewpoint neutral and 2. rational basis |
|
|
Term
| Regulation in Public Education |
|
Definition
1. Can't substantially interfere w/ school's work, OR
2. impinge on rights of other students
(Guideposts: curricular? school event? school grounds?) |
|
|
Term
| Regulation in Public Employment |
|
Definition
Balance a) speech as citizen or employee?, b) public/private concern? and c) impact on job (does it impermissibly interfere?)
Can regulate if speak as employee, public concern, and impacts job |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Never allowed
What is it? Taking away gov't money that can't be gotten from any other source (ex: tax cuts) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Public Speech: viewpoint discrimination is okay (ex: family planning clinic, lobby group, arts funding, library)
Private Speech: must be viewpoint neutral (ex: school newspaper content, lawyers to clients) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Disclosure Regulation: strict scrutiny
Membership Discrimination: only allowed if it's 1. intimate organization, or 2. discrimination is integral to expression activity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Gov't can't make you fund private speech, only public |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Balance government interest in regulation with burden on speech
Shopping centers: states can require that it have 1st Amendment protection, but can post sign saying that it doesn't agree |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Furthers important government interest
2. restricts no more speech than necessary |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Gov't Regulation of Political Party Primaries |
|
Definition
| Gov't can mandate the time needed before primary that people must register with the party (2 years too long, 1 year long enough) |
|
|
Term
| Parties' Rights to Associate with Its Members |
|
Definition
| Blanket primaries to determine a party designee are bad b/c they require parties to associate with non-members, thereby changing the results of the primary |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Buckley: struck (under strict scrutiny) b/c it's a direct limit on speech AND less worry about corruption
McCain-Feingold: expenditure ban on ads near election
Matching Finance Cases: these are expenditures ban (AND penalties)
**Expenditures bans negatively impact 3rd party groups who want to show their support separate from the candidate |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Buckley: it's okay b/c of quid pro quo corruption (intermediate scrutiny)
Randall: no contribution OR expenditure limits (plurality only)
Citizens United: still okay b/c of the concern of quid pro quo corruption |
|
|
Term
| Corporate Campaign Finance |
|
Definition
Bellotti: Corporations can speak about electoral issues
Austin: Corporations can use money from separate funds for political activity, but NOT for CLEAR ADVOCACY of candidate (OVERRULED by Citizens United)
Now: court generally doesn't allow regulation of corporate speech in campaigns |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Hard: Money directly to candidate (limited)
Soft: Money given in support of party, not specific candidate (federal candidates can't use this b/c of Citizens United; non-profits, PAC's, etc. can use BOTH in unlimited amounts) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Bans a whole topic (ex: no political speech at all) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Bans a point of view (ex: no pro-choice speech) |
|
|
