Term
| What was the "clear and present danger" test aimed at determining? |
|
Definition
| It's aimed at determining the point that speech becomes close enough to triggering serious harm, enough that it loses First Amendment protection. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Supreme Court's current vision of the "clear and present danger" test? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What was the significance of the 1971 "Pentagon Papers" case? |
|
Definition
- What is it? A consultant who worked for the Pentagon on classified history of the Vietnam War leaked copies of the secret manuscript to both the New York Times and the Washington Post. National security was at stake.
- Significance: It was the first time the government had ever sought a federal court order to prevent publication.A prior restraint. This posed a historic First Amendment clash of utmost significance & urgency. (Settled 2 weeks after the problem first arose.)
- Final say: the Court stated the government “carries a heavy burden of showing justification “ for prior restraints and that it did not meet the burden in this case. So the papers were free to publish. (ruled 6-3)
|
|
|
Term
- Explain in common-sense terms why the courts protected the media in cases such as "Zamora v. CBS" –- Pg. 96-- (where a 14-year-old killed his neighbor and then argued that he had been twisted by the cumulative effects of TV violence) and "Walt Disney Productions v. Shannon" – Pg. 98- (involving a copycat injury based on a Mickey Mouse Club episode), while "Weirum v. RKO General – Pg. 98- (the freeway case to find a disc jokey) and in the "Hit Man" litigation – Pg. 101- , they did not.
|
|
Definition
In the Zamora case, it was unmeasurable whether or not the the claims were true or false. In the Weirum case, and the Hit Man case, the connection between harm and speech was obvious and clear. If the connection is not clear, the speaker will win in these cases.
|
|
|
