Detailed Notes from Com 250 for the Test
Detailed Notes from Com 250 for the Test COM 250
Popular in Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Communication Studies
This 11 page Bundle was uploaded by Natalie Land on Tuesday November 3, 2015. The Bundle belongs to COM 250 at University of Miami taught by Samuel Terilli in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 386 views. For similar materials see Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics in Communication Studies at University of Miami.
Reviews for Detailed Notes from Com 250 for the Test
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/03/15
Freedom of Expression Fighting Words and Hate Speech • Can words or speech provoke violence? A fight? o Childhood playground examples vs adults-‐ provoking violence? o If I were to use words to provoke someone to hurt me with a beer bottle? § Should these words be identified and then prohibited? § What happens? § The law didn’t accomplish prohibiting these words in the first place? o Words that by very use of word I would provoke violence: are a problem § Fighting words have no role in discussion of ideas, if I call you a name how is that free speech? • Chaplinsky v New Hampshire o Who was he? § A Jehovah’s witness, which was a minority, from Rochester New Hampshire o What happened? § In town goes yelling at commissioner of town calling him g-‐d damn fascist and Racketer then he gets charged with disturbing the peace and gets convicted, this goes to the supreme court o SCT reasoning • Is there words that exist that are so dangerous that inflict injury and we can list these words by words, that they should then be prohibited? o Opinion by one student in class: no because depends on context o Calling someone a Brazilian piece of shit is hurtful depends on who • The governments interest is protecting the actual violence that occurs when using these words, not the words themselves. • If I go to an African American and say nigga, and he punches me is that allowed? o Who is at fault? o Government can’t prohibit that word completely, its in question of context o Charged not with the word but everything else to provoke the violence • Name calling has no value in the search for truth so why protect someone from saying “fascist” to someone • Also government has interest in preserving peace and preventing fights: this is their main goal o These words that by very use inflict injury or violence have no value so we allow government to prohibit them for every use § In this case they aren’t looking at context but the worlds themselves • Dicta: stuff that court says that didn’t need to say, its just helpful • Did mr. chaplisnky really inflict injury? Were we in danger? Nothing to show a yes to these questions • Terminello: o Father terminello was a rascist catholic priest holding a rally in Chicago, he begins to say things bad about jews and blacks o Good people get mad and throw rocks at him o They arrest him for disturbing the peace o Supreme Court: reverses this conviction and say § That too is protected because function of free speech is to invite dispute, we value and protect unless there is truly a clear and present danger has to be more annoying and offensive etc o The court is picking up on context now: got to look at the context for example in Chaplisnky he would have been convicted § Crowd outside was out of control not the followers inside that terminello was talking to but the ones throwing rocks • 1960 Cohen v California o Cohen in a court room wearing a jacket that says fuck the draft o He gets arrested because this “might” provoke violence • David Chapel Video o White supremist § At a blind home they told black kids hes white and he starts speaking against jews, blacks and anyone that isn’t white o Could this video done by a white comedian rather than black § Does it matter who is delivering the message, the comedy? § What if you are Cuban and you make a joke about a Cuban its kind of okay • This is the different between both • If there is subdivision of people but it comes from an outside source there is greater possibility that it can hurt and be insulting • Majority directed at minority does cause us to step back • Hate Speech: might start fight but its more of an emotional pain, not speech we like • Fight words: words that when said would start a fight • Gooding V Wilson o Who we are talking to § Must consider the person addressed, not just the so-‐called “ average man” in society the context § We can use these words legally except in certain context § Its an ethics question, morality, not just legality • The motherfucker cases o Use of contextual approach by the Supreme Court o Use of motherfucker § Mom used this in school board meeting § They arrested her under state law § And there is also a case where a guy is talking bad about cops at university chapel he gets arrested and convicted § Theres also mom’s son who gets arrested for calling cop a mother fucker § All cases are vacated and remanded § There is a concurring opinion • The STC says this should be protected speech § We have to look at context, notion that all words are protected but we have to look at the context • Supreme court during the 60s o RAV v city of st paul § Kids burn cross in neighborhood in a fenced yard of an African American family § Trespassing: got prosecuted under ST pauls ordinance if you use language symbols to express hatred on certain criteria such as race, religion, gender, you can get charged with other crimes and enhances the penalty § This goes to the supreme court • Bottom line result: court throws out the conviction o Accept the Minnesota state laws interpretation o This law only prosecutes fighting words § Scalia: law professor says that accept the Minnesota statute but still throws out the conviction § His logic is • Fighting words have no essential value, whatever the value is it is outweighed by the conviction • By prohibiting fighting words we are allowing government to discriminate against certain type of words on basis of context • allowing government to engage in content discrimination should not be allowed • if government can pick and choose which fighting words to prohibit than it is disfavoring • we prohibit “nigga” etc but we allow “gays” § Fighting words: those that have little or no value § Scalia says it has to be across the road cant just be one word etc § Speech on someone’s race or religion is really bad but what about speech on sexuality: if it’s a fighting word than it’s a fighting word doesn’t have to be limited to just those two categories • Hate Speech o Fighting words document is different than hate speech o Today it has to be speech directed at a specific small group or individual with purpose of provoking violence § The fighting words document is a very narrow document today o Hate Speech: insults, slurs, directed to a group of people based on a shared characteristic § Its just hateful and merely distasteful § Do we prohibit hate speech by law? o Virginia v Black § Rally on park property against Clinton 25 ft cross, burn it and its on private property and its next to a highway § Someone went on someone’s private property and burned cross • A symbol which began at first as something else • Resist giving rights to black who were violent • S grant went to congress and got permission to go after the clan o Clan went quiet but ws very violent o This was different than an industrial flag being burned because it was more directed towards one specific person the neighbor § Court decides to go through history of burning cross where it began etc § Burning flag showed to not always be a symbol of racism but it often is § Cross burning in our society has a certain meaning • If in a neighborhood a new black family moves in and I go in the street and I burn a cross and shout at them to go back home o Its directed at somebody o When its directed at somebody its legality can be questioned • Court said we cant deny the secondary meaning of the cross burning, but it doesn’t mean we can make every racism language illegal but if cross is burned with intent to a specific group and to intimidate than its bad • Intention in this case was to intimidate § Go into a store and shout nigga : this is fighting word that gets punished the ones who started the violence § Fighting words equals provoking illegal behavior • Search for fighting factors o Campus speech and Academic environment § Is there a way of protecting type of speeches on campus that goes along with the first amendment? • IE: a rally anti Colombia on breeze way and there is a lot of Colombians? What do you do ? • IE: Donald trump comes to UM and says we should build a wall and we should send back all non citizens o Would our hate speech policy not allow Donald to do this o What do you do do you make it a private event? o Private vs State Universities § What if the speech is not directly directed at you? • It clearly is if for example you say hitler was right etc etc • How do you write a rule of conduct that’s specific and not vague? • You cant write a speech code because everyone has a different view on what is hate speech § Doe V University of Michigan § UMW post v Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin • Arguments Pros and Cons Hate Speech o Hate Speech § Sometimes hate speech really does hurt § Hateful speech does also because it silences others pints of view, if people feel they aren’t valued § Hate speech laws that have been challenged do not survive o Five Basic Themes § Religion, Sacred Monarchies, Divinity • Significant role in hate speech o Majorities Vs Minorities § How do we protect rights of dissenters? § Blasi’s Pathological Perspective: when were nervous its harder to tolerate free speech • Obscenity and Child Porn o What is obscene speech § Obscenity and indecency § Obscenity: narrower category defining its categorical exceptions to first amendment • Things that are so inappropriate that they are beyond unspeakable and should be banned o Porn § Indecency: broader subject not everything that’s indecent is by law obscene § Obscene: not protected by first amendment • So low It has no value § Can be made criminal how do we define what is obscene • Protection of Morality in Society o Porn leads men to think of women as a subject of sex § Does porn encourage promiscuity, infidelity, does it lead us to viewing women as inferior • Roth v United States o That begins porn issue o Court goes back and says we could regulate obscenity o Average person: the jury has to figure person of average sensibilities o Contemporary communication standards: today if case is being filed in Miami than local jury and Florida standards is what you use o In general, you have to look at the whole theme • Ginzburg Case o Even if we are not sure content of movie is obscene, but the actual ads are obscene we use that • Current law is Millel V California o In 50s and 60s § It had to be utterly without any redeeming value § Society was not sync with what the court said o Miller v California § Nixon administration, some of the guidelines are right out of Roth but new stuff says that whether work as a whole lacks artistic, political, or scientific value • It has to lack serious value but what does this really mean? Obscenity and Pornography • US vs Extreme Associates o First major case on obscenity after a long time went to the federal court was this case • Miller v California o Before the internet existed o Individual community had different values about pron so each community could make their own laws o Most porn today can g to someone home without involving the entire community now it is a private individual with use of internet and media • Child porn as abuse o Current law is miller v California § Culture, technology, business interest § Should government be involved-‐ look at market size etc, its such a big business what do you do § Is there anything left to the question of obscenity • If you produce a video and they can convince jury that o As a whole lakcs literary artistic value o Work describes in an offensive way sexual conduct defined as applicable by state law o Whether average personorn with community standards believes video as a whole has excessive interest in sexual matters o Child porn § If you use real children of course its illegal § New York vs Ferber • Said child porn isn’t speech • The whole notion of creating porn is that its created by consenting adults and bought by consenting adults • But child porn-‐ they are too young to sign a contract and give consent • Child abuse is a crime that has nothing to do with first amendment o Ohio v Osborn § Stanley vs Georgia • Guy got arrested because he had a bunch of Child porn films o Kept illegal the production and sale of porn but obsession of it was legal § In Ohio v Osborne • Osborn simply possessed it he didn’t produce it • If you have porn of children, courts will come down on you because its viewed as child abuse trying to kill market for it now a days • You can have child born that isn’t obscene but its still illegal o You can have pictures of naked children that doesn’t constitute obscenity or abuse or child porn § Child porn prevention act of 1996 • 2002 • arms around internet • expanded applicality of federal law to all of forms of porn on internet etc • court said law of 1996 was unconstitutional they said the whole point of feiber law was that real children were being abused • if your film on the other hand uses adult actors that look like kids this by feiber isn’t considered bad, this is only persecuted with the miller test § court agrees with congress and says that if your using an eighteen-‐year-‐old to look like a twelve-‐year-‐old and your advertising campaign and target audience has intent of making people believe its children this is considered illegal because the intent is to make it believable. Defamation: Chapter 7 • protecting one’s reputation vs the idea of free expression? • Some basics o Libel and Slander: § Libel: False statement that is damaging to someone’s reputation § Slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation • Defamation: first interest in your reputation is what we are really talking about o Some words that are defamation have no value under the first amendment o For a long time the defamation law was just a state law but not constitutional law § IF I describe a person with the wrong details • Have I injured her reputation? • Mistakes even intentional will not always damage person’s reputation § If later on someone comments on the student and says she’s been sleeping with teacher that does affect her reputation: look at whether mistake affects reputation § If I say “Matt is the ugliest shirt Ive ever seen? I defamed you-‐ no may have been offensive, but I didn’t defame you § I can be mean without ruining your reputation § Libel and defamation are still state laws issues but now constitution applies • Basics on Defamation o Libel: written form of defamation o Standard: spoken form of defamation § Difference of rules but begins to blur with Tv Radio Technology o Who can sue under US law for defamation? § Not just individuals but businesses also, if you defame a business that business might be able to sue you for loss of profits § Loss of customers etc • Group Libel cases not really illegal o Defaming a political party, a religious group, cant really sue. • Defamation Cases Basics o Sullivan v Ny Times § Our interest in our reputation § Why does law protect reputation? • Goes back to English Law we don’t want people taking it to the streets • English said if I falsely accuse you for something that ruins your reputation you can sue me • Libel sue: doesn’t simply mean that your offended, libel means is only possible if someone has published a fact about someone that is false and injures reputation • Scientology o If we write about them in general tough to sue but if I defame the church itself, they can sue the way any other business does o Individual members can sue o What point does group get too large to sue? • Defamation o False statement of fact that ruins reputation o Ny Times vs. Sullivan Case § 1964 civil rights struggle § case about an ad that was placed by civil rights leaders to raise money to support civil rights struggles in South • criticism of southerners in Alabama o IE: the students were arrested for singing at state campus: false • Who sued: mr Sullivan-‐ police commissioner filed a libel suit • Sullivan went to trial court o Quick trial and said Ny times had defamed good name of commissioner Sullivan § Defamation law: until time of Sullivan was considered state law not constitutional law § This case is about power of government to punish people who have different point of view • Who cares about mistakes what matters is that defamation law needs to be constitutional to provide for breathing space § Sulivan Take Aways • Malice: publish or say something and you know its false and you don’t care: lying • In these cases against the media the government officials can not win for defamation suit if they don’t prove actual malice on time of media • Malice standard: public § Post Sullivan Developments • After Sullivan case law develops further Sullivan focuses on public officials and government after it becomes also public figures and private citizens in events of public concerns o IE: Athletic Director § Malice rule doesn’t apply to private people § Public officials have to prove actual malice § Gurts Rule: states get to decide what private individual have to prove: most is negligence: failure to use reasonable care o Kobe Bryant: burden of proof to convict someone in criminal case has to prove valid o In our country it is very difficult for Public official or public government to win defamation suits • Privacy Interests vs Free Speech o Conceptual Buckets: § Constitutional Privacy: right privacy grounded in the us constitution, right of privacy from government intrusion into your private life § When can government read your email § There is no privacy amendment in constitution § Griswold v Conn • Government found guilty these people of being those for the use of contraceptives • They were fined • There was a law about contraceptives • court goes through different amendments and says government cant intrude in intimate privacy between husband and wife or physician and patients o pros and cons § what happens if we give judges to look at constitution loosely § we don’t want judges to have complete freedom, we need stability of law § creates uncertainty § Lawrence vs Texas o Statutory Privacy: § Issues about personal life § laws enacted by congress or state legislatures § not constitution § process you vote you elect people to congress who can pass, change, or appeal laws § some laws come and go § laws that have an impact on your daily life • health insurance o Tort Law § Tort is a civil wrong § Defamation is a tort § Car accident is a tort example of Clarisssa § Negligence that injures someone else giving that person right to sue you for damaging them § Defamation: first tort law o Disclosure of Private Facts § Publication of private information that would be highly offensive to a reasonable persona and is not legitimate § Concern to public: ie: widespread of very personal information that is not news worthy o False Light § Places the person in a false light that would be highly offensive to a person § While true it is written in a way that creates distortion § Duplicative of defamation however defamation is reputation interest and the false light is subjective interest in claims for emotional injury hurt feelings § This is recognized by 2/3 of states §
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'