COM 250 REVIEW SHEET FINAL EXAM
COM 250 REVIEW SHEET FINAL EXAM COM250
Popular in Freedom of Expression
verified elite notetaker
One Day of Notes
verified elite notetaker
One Day of Notes
ECON 201 A
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
One Day of Notes
POL S 331
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Communication
This 16 page Study Guide was uploaded by Carmen Mia on Friday January 9, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to COM250 at University of Miami taught by Driscoll in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 301 views. For similar materials see Freedom of Expression in Communication at University of Miami.
Reviews for COM 250 REVIEW SHEET FINAL EXAM
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: 01/09/15
COM 250 REVIEW SHEET FINAL EXAM FINAL EXAM TIME THURSDAY DECEMBER 1111OOA t0 130P COVERS CHAPTERS 9 10 11 CHAPTER 11 In class we covered a number of regulatory models affecting different media of mass communication print model broadcast model cable model common carrier model Which model extends the greatest First Amendment protection Print media has the most lst amendment protection What did the Court say about the print model in Miami Herald v Tornillo 1972 p 296 Pat Tornillo Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association and a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives in Dade County Florida The Miami Herald published two editorials criticizing Tornillo and his candidacy He demanded that the Herald publish his responses to the editorials When the Herald refused Tornillo sued in Dade County Circuit Court under Florida Statute Section which granted political candidates criticized by any newspaper the right to have their responses to the criticisms published The Herald challenged the statute as a violation of the free press clause of the First Amendment The Circuit Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional The Supreme Court of Florida reversed this decision The Court reversed the Supreme Court of Florida and held that Florida39s quotright to replyquot statute violated the freedom of press found in the First Amendment In an opinion written by ChiefJustice Warren E Burger the Court recognized the risks posed to the quottrue marketplace of ideasquot by media consolidation and barriers to entry in the newspaper industry However even in that context quotpress responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution andcannot be legislatedquot The statute was an quotintrusion into the function of editorsquot and imposed quota penalty on the basis of the contentquot PRINT MODEL D The court held that while the statute does not quotprevent newspapers from saying anything they wishquot it quotexacts a penalty on the basis of the contentquot Because newspapers are economically nite enterprises quoteditors may conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversyquot thereby chilling speech Furthermore the Court held the exercise of editorial judgment is a protected First Amendment activity In effect this ruling reaf rmed the constitutional principle of freedom of the press detailed in the First Amendment and prevented state governments from controlling the content Of the press This case illustrates the medium with the most Constitutional protection newspapers while Red Lion Broadcasting Co v FCC represents the medium with the least protection broadcast television and radio What are the reasons why the broadcast model does not feature full First Amendment protection Pervasive Presence Theory Broadcasting is available to virtually all of the population Once the TV or radio is turned on offensive messages can enter the home at any time and without warning Broadcasting is basically an intrusive business and consumers especially children need some protection from the government Scarcity Theory The electromagnetic spectrum is limited only a nite number of broadcasting stations can exist in a certain place at a certain time Therefore the spectrum is a public resource and cannot be privately owned Demand exceeds supply Where does the cable model t 1St Amend Protection More than broadcast less than print 0 The Communications Act requires cable operators to set aside a speci ed portion of their channels for local commercial and noncommercial television stations What is a common carrier Legal monopoly that offers service without discrimination telephone services or electric company you have to serve everyone like FLP is the only one who runs power in Miami they can39t say you have to pay more everyone pays the same and gets connected Should the Internet be regulated as a common carrier model net neutrality debate Question of whether or not the Internet should be treated as a common carrier everyone pay the same for the exact same service paid priority Fast lanes Obama39s Title 2 says no paid priority no fast lanes With paid priority big companies would be the only ones who could pay for large fees for priority from Internet companies limiting the ability of new start ups Another question on net neutralityinclude mobile What statute governs broadcasting today Communications Act of 1934 What did the Court say about the First Amendment rights of motion pictures in the Mutual Film case 1915 Doesn39t have any because it is a new art form not part of the presslike the theater or circus The court stated D quotthe exhibition of moving pictures is a business pure and simple originated and conducted for pro t not to be regarded nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution we think as part of the press of the country or as organs of public opinionquot Has First Amendment protection changed for motion pictures Yes 1915 Mutual Film Corporation v Industrial Commission of Ohio the Supreme Court observed that motion pictures do not constitute part of the quotpressquot in the State of Ohio For this reason motion pictures were held not entitled to First Amendment protection from censorship This case arose in response to the passing of a statute whereby the Board of Censors had to approve all motion pictures prior to their exhibition 1918 the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry voted for self censorship A code of standards which speci ed unacceptable subjects and situations for depiction in motion pictures was also speci ed 1952 in a landmark case Burstyn v Wilson the US Supreme Court ruled for the rst time that motion pictures are a constitutionally protected form of expression Are there any motion picture censorship boards still operating 1968 the Motion Picture Production Code was of cially replaced by the rst version of the MPAA39s voluntary movie classi cation system This classi cation system assigns a rating currently G PG PG 13 R or NC 17 to a movie based on the movie39s content and the way that content is handled These ratings are cautionary warnings for parents rather than an endorsement Although the MPAA continues to issue certi cate numbers for all lms assigned one of its classi cations and its seal and certi cate number are still displayed at the end of a lm39s credits the certi cate number now merely indicates that the movie has been viewed by the MPAA and has received an MPAA rating What communication technology has traditionally been regulated under the common carrier model Telephone companies What position did the Court take about broadcasting and the First Amendment in the Red Lion case 1969 about the FCC39s personal attack rule a corollary of the larger fairness doctrine The case Red Lion Broadcasting Co had failed to meet its obligation under the fairness doctrine when it carried a program which constituted a personal attack on one Cook journalist Fred J Cook and ordered it to send a transcript of the broadcast to Cook and provide reply time whether or not Cook would pay for it While strongly suggesting that broadcast radio stations are First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech is protected upheld the equal time provisions of the Fairness Doctrine both sides presented ruling that it was quotthe right of the public to receive suitable access to social political esthetic moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial herequot Personal attack rule lThe FCC by administrative rulemaking had required that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage As a result the FCC added an quotequal time rulequot and a quotresponse to personal attackquot rule New personal attack regulations as adopted and amended were held unconstitutional as abridging freedom of speech and press HELD personal attack doctrine and regulations don39t differ from Fairness Doctrine As well they are a legitimate exercise of congressionally delegated authority Red Lion Broadcasting Co challenged these rules as unconstitutionally infringing on the speech of the station39s editorial judgment justice Byron White writing for the majority explained the FCC has included among the conditions of the Red Lion license itself the requirement that operation of the station be carried out in the public interest What was the fairness doctrine Is it still in effect today Not still around 1949 FCC required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was in the Commission39s view honest equitable and balanced 1 Cover controversial issue of public importance 2 If you cover one side you have to make a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of opposing viewpoints Are the personal attack and political editorializing rules still in effect Remained in practice until 2000 The quotpersonal attackquot rule applied whenever a person or small group was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond ontheair The quotpolitical editorialquot rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public of ce and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be noti ed and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine The FCC did not provide prompt justi cation and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000 Do you believe the rationales for broadcasting having less First Amendment protection remain legitimate today Yes because I believe exposure to sexually explicit and violent material on television does have an affect on the general public In accordance with the pervasive presence theory broadcasting is free and available to virtually all of the population Once the TV or radio is turned on offensive messages can enter the home at any time and without warning Broadcasting is basically an intrusive business and consumers especially children need some protection from the government As well the electromagnetic spectrum is limited only a nite number of broadcasting stations can exist in a certain place at a certain time Therefore the spectrum is a public resource and cannot be privately owned Does broadcasting have any First Amendment protection Yes of course BUT Broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection Among the reasons for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the lives of our people Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and it is impossible completely to avoid What did the Court conclude in the FCC v Paci ca Foundation case 1978 Upheld the broadcast indecency law Man driving with 16 year old son listening to Paci ca and they played a satirical monologue by George Carlin quot7 dirty words you can39t say on the radio or televisionquot Court of appeals unanimously says you can39t bar indecency 247 unconstitutional But Supreme court supports FCC de nition of indecency The ban on obscene indecent or p Section 17 Today ne can be up to 325000 each time What rationale was introduced to support its decision Pervasivenessintrusiveness broadcasting in the home How does that rationale compare with the decision in Cohen v California quotJust overt your eyesquot rationale doesn39t work Does indecency regulation still apply to broadcasters today Yes What about to cable and the Internet No FCC indecency and profanity prohibitions apply to quotconventional broadcast servicesquot and not subscription services such as cable and satellite The obscene programming prohibition however applies across the board What is the safe harbor period The hours during which broadcasters may transmit material deemed indecent for children Enforced by FCC it extends legally from 10 PM to 6 AM and was established by the US Supreme Court case FCC v Paci ca What happened in the Action for Children s Televison v FCC cases 1970 ACT petitioned the FCC to ban advertisements in children39s programming 1971 ACT challenged the promotion of vitamins to children 1973 as a response the National Association of Broadcasters adopted a revised code limiting commercial time in children39s programming to twelve minutes per hour Additionally the hosts of children39s television programs were prohibited from appearing in commercials aimed at children 1977 ACT the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the FTC to ban television advertising targeted at children too young to understand the concept of selling as well as advertising for highsugar foods pitched at older children 19805 ACT criticized television programs that featured popular toys such as G l Joe and HeMan saying that they quotblur the distinction between program content and commercial speechquot and successfully barred Garbage Pail Kids from the air Opposed the proposed introduction of Channel One News a television news show featuring advertiserbased programming into the schools an effort which met with only limited success ACT vc FCC 1987 Children39s Television Act of 1990 establishing formal guidelines for children39s programming including rules governing advertising content and quantity What did I say in lecture about the Court39s latest decision on eeting expletives Nicole Richie Paris Hilton Fleeting expletives a nonscripted verbal profanity or obscenity expressed and broadcast during a live television broadcast or radio broadcast IN CLASS D you have been warned you will be nailed for eeting expletives quotI wouldn39t air them Dr Driscollquot How does indecency differ from obscenity Obscenity NOT granted protection Material is obscene if 1 An average person applying contemporary community standards must nd that the material as a whole appeals to the prurient interest as in a morbid interest in sex 2quotThe material must depict or describe in a patently offensive way sexual conduct speci cally de ned by applicable law and 3 quotThe material taken as a whole must lack serious literary artistic political or scienti c valuequot lndecency as de ned by the FCC quotlanguage or material that in context depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium sexual or excretory organs or activitiesquot Protected BUT restricted from airing on television and radio between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm hours where children are likely to watch ls indecency regulation limited to the seven dirty works found in the Carlin case No since the late 198039s it has been changing The commission39s cases made it a point to reassure broadcasters that eeting sexual references or depictions would not likely be problematic that at least some innuendo and double entendre could pass muster that merit was an important aspect of indecency analysis and that complainants would have to provide evidentiary support to trigger serious commission review of indecency claims What did the Court decide about indecency on the Internet in Reno v ACLU 1997 Question constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which seeks to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet Held The CDA39s quotindecent transmissionquot and quotpatently offensive displayquot provisions abridge quotthe freedom of speechquot protected by the First Amendment CHAPTER 10 What is symbolic expression Nonverbal in nature May range in action from mere display of symbols to actual kinetic conduct dance Many many cases having to do with patriotic symbols the United States ag or instruments of government military draft cards What are some forms of symbolic expression protected by the First Amendment Cohen v California quotFuck the Draftquot example The Supreme Court held that a state could not convict an individual for quotoffensive conductquot based solely on the content of his speech Burning the ag as protest Performing a song dance or poem that protests something Wearing armbands quotFur is Murderquot covered in red paint protesting outside of fur stores What did the Court rule in Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette 1943 Supreme Court overturns lawcompelling children to salute the ag in West Virginia public schools It was in this case that symbolic expression was addressed by the court more fully than in the Stromberg case The 1st time a ag is recognized as a symbol that functions as part of a political discussion Spence v Washington 1974 For displaying out of his apartment window a US ag upside down with a peace symbol taped thereto appellant was convicted under Washington39s quotimproper usequot statute forbidding the exhibition of a United States ag to which is attached or superimposed gures symbols or other extraneous material Testi ed that he displayed his ag as a protest against thenrecent actions in Cambodia and fatal events at Kent State University and that his purpose was to associate the American flag with peace instead of war and violence Held The statute as applied to appellant39s activity impermissibly infringed a form of protected expression Privately owned ag hung from private property No trespass or disorderly conduct record is devoid of proof of any risk of breach or peace Cannot be analyzed in terms of reasonable time place or manner restraints on access to a public area It was not appellant39s purpose to incite violence or even stimulate a public demonstration No evidence that any crowd gathered or that appellant made any effort to attract attention beyond hanging the ag out of his own window No printed or written speech although a message was communicated It is rmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers Cohen v California you can simply look away if you are offended CONSIDERED SYMBOLIC SPEECH What was the Court39s decision on burning draft cards in US v O39Brien David O Brien is convicted in federal court of burning his military draft registration certi cate aka his quotdraft cardquot In violation of 1965 federal law making it illegal to forge alter knowingly destroy or mutilate a draft card O39Brien argues his conduct was symbolic expression protected by the Constitutionand wins a reversal of his conviction in the court of appeals US Supreme Court reverses appeals court and reinstates O39Brien39s conviction 7 1 Court nds that a quotsubstantial government interestquot exists in prohibiting the action which may only quotincidentallyquot infringe on O39Brien39s First Amendment freedoms quotSubstantial government interestquot the info on the draft card is lawful proof of registration for the military draft Mutilation of the card may encourage forgeries and alterations Taken together during the Vietnam War the Court rules the conduct would detrimentally affect the smooth operation of the Selective Service draft The court however upheld O39Brien39s conviction under 462 which in its view made violation of the nonpossession regulation a lesser included offense of the crime de ned by the 1965 Amendment Held The 1965 Amendment plainly does not abridge free speech on its face 0 When quotspeechquot and quotnonspeechquot elements are combined in the same course of conduct a suf ciently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms A governmental regulation is suf ciently justi ed if it is within the constitutional power of the Government and furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to that interest The 1965 Amendment meets all these requirements The preexistence of the nonpossession regulation does not negate Congress39 clear interest in providing alternative statutory avenues of prosecution to assure its interest in preventing destruction of the Selective Service certi cates What is the speechaction continuum presented in class Thomas Emerson four reasons for protection of speech 1 Achieving individual self fulfillmentthe mind must be free essential nature 2 Advancing knowledge and discovering Truth John Stewart Mill 3 Making decisions democratically Governments get power from governedfreedom of expression to Religion literature art science and all areas of human learning and knowledge 4 Achieving a more adaptable and hence a more stable community of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus Freedom of expression essential element in a good society Pure speech Pure conduct 1 SpeechExpression belief opinion and communication of ideas freely allowed and encouraged 2 Action conduct can be controlled by the Constitution state or federal law Expression is normally conceived as doing less injury to other social goals than action Need to draw a protective and precise line between expression and action An individual must know the extent of his rights and have assurance What is the test employed for regulation of symbolic speech O Brien Test Test for regulating symbolic speech TPM is rational basis symbolic is intermediate scrutiny there is also strict scrutiny for content based regulation The O39Brien Test is thus The law in question must 0 be within the constitutional power of the government to enact further an important or substantial government interest 0 That interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech or quotcontent neutralquot as phrased in later cases Prohibit no more speech than is essential to further that interest Does the American flag have special protection Texas v Johnson 1989 Yes it is protected under quotsymbolic speechquot by the First Amendment Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American ag outside of the convention center where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas Texas Johnson burned the ag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object including the American ag if such action were likely to incite anger in others A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson He appealed arguing that his actions were quotsymbolic speechquot protected by the First Amendment The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may nd very offensive but society39s outrage alone is not justi cation for suppressing free speech CHAPTER 9 What is a time place and manner restriction First Amendment protection based on where when and how a communication is expressed Constraints must be content neutral What did the Court decide in Davis v Massachusetts 1897 Da vis TheU v Massachusetts 1897 Minister William F Davis preaches a sermon on Boston Common without the permit required by law Davis was ned and ordered to pay court costs Davis appeals claiming his First Amendment rights were violated and law convicting him was unconstitutional Massachusetts Supreme Court upholds conviction 5 Supreme Court also upholds Davis conviction Declares that government is entrusted with supervision of public places and has complete control over their use including speechmaking quot For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a high way or public park is no more of an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for an owner of a private house to forbid it in his house quot In what 1939 case did the Court break from its precedent in Davis Hague v CIO 1939 On November 29 1937 several individuals gathered at the headquarters of the Congress for Industrial Organization CIO labor union in Jersey City New Jersey to initiate a recruitment drive and discuss the National Labor Relations Act Acting on the orders of Mayor Frank Hague ofJersey City police seized the group39s recruitment materials and refused to allow the meeting to take place The ClO challenges the Jersey City New Jersey law requiring a permit for all public meetings in the streets and all other public places Of cials could deny permits for the purpose of quotpreventing riots disturbances or disorderly assemblagequot Federal district court nds law unconstitutional federal appeals court af rms and Hague takes it to the US Supreme Court US Supreme Court deems it as unconstitutional What did the Court decide about regulations address in their Schneider v State decision 1939 Government motive was to prevent littering Can39t ban doortodoor advocacy as long as you are not impeding normal activity public areas must allow the communication of ideas and information and the law cannot abridge that right Why did the Court uphold the convictions of the Jehovah39s Witnesses in Cox v New Hampshire 1941 Manchester New Hampshire enacts a law that requires permits be issued for any parade and charges a fee to help cover government expenses associated with the parade police overtime barriers etc A group of 68 Jehovah39s Witnesses decided to parade through city streets and sidewalks without getting the required permit or paying the required fee All 68 are convicted of violating the law in municipal court New Hampshire Supreme Court upholds convictions Only applies to time place and manner NOT to content or ideas being communicated Also the law did not allow discretion of any state or city of cials Everyone had to get a permiteveryone had to pay the fee The fee was a reasonable amount to cover government expenses associated with the parade therefore it was NOT considered an unconstitutional impediment to free speech What is the Court39s threepart test for determining the constitutionality of time place or manner restrictions that limit the use of public forums to disseminate messages Time Place and Manner Test 1 Regulations are justi ed without reference to the content of the regulated speech ie content neutral 2 They are narrowly tailored to serve a signi cant governmental interest least restrictive means analysis not required Ward v Rock Against Racism 1989 3 They leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information How does it differ from the strict scrutiny test A different test applies for content speci c restrictions eg cant disclose classi ed national security secrets Strict Scrutiny Test 1 Regulation is content speci c 2 Compelling not signi cant substantial or legitimate government interest 3 least restrictive means can39t be a better way to reach the government interest with less intrusion on First Amendment rights How does a court decide which test is appropriate to apply in a particular situation What did the Court hold in Grayned v City of Rockford 1971 regarding its compatible use rule D Antinoise ordinance prohibiting a person while on grounds adjacent to a building in which a school is in session from willfully making a noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the school session is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad The ordinance is not vague since with fair warning it prohibits only actual or imminent and willful interference with normal school activity and is not a broad invitation to discriminatory enforcement The quotcompatibleuse rulequot De ned byJustice Thurgood Marshall in the case Grayned v Rockford 1972 where loud student protesters were convicted of making a quotnoise or diversionquot near a school during normal school hours that disturbs the school39s education quotThe crucial question in whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular timequot The government has a quotsigni cant interestquot in the education of children therefore a content neutral regulation regarding noise near schools is NOT a First Amendment violation What had the Court decided in earlier cases about compatible use at statehouse grounds Edwards case courthouses Cox and Grace cases prisons Adderly case and the Court39s latest abortion ruling McCullen v Coakley 2014 Protesting near a courthouse Supreme Court upholds a constitutionality of laws prohibiting demonstrations at a courthouse quotwith the intent of interfering with obstructing or impeding the administration ofjustice or with the intent of in uencing any judge juror witness or court officerquotCox v Louisiana II 1965 A later case E US v Grace 1983 allowed protests on sidewalks outside the US Supreme Court but left in place a law prohibiting demonstrations on the grounds ofinside the court McCullen v Coakley Protesting abortion clinics Fixed quotbuffer zonesquot around clinic entrances to protect patient and physician safety are no longer Okay june 2014 McCullen v Coakley 35 foot zone Noise restrictions also OK Edwards v South Carolina 1963 Several AfricanAmerican students peacefully protests racial discrimination on the grounds of the South Carolina legislature Police break up the protest and charge students with quotbreach of the peacequot several convicted US Supreme Court overturns all convictions 8 1 Using the statehouse grounds to quotredress grievancesquot was determined to be a quotcompatible usequot by the Court Justice Potter Stewart quotThe circumstances of this case re ect an exercise of basic constitutional rights in their most pristine and classic formquot Protesting near a jail or prison Adderley v Florida 1966 Contrasting with the Edwards case Court nds no First Amendment protection exists for protests on prison grounds due to lack of quotcompatible usequot What did the Court say in the sleepspeech case Clark v Community for Creative Nonviolence Do you agree with their decision National Park service rule prohibiting camping in certain parks does not violate the First Amendment when applied to prohibit demonstrators from camping and sleeping in Lafayette Park and the National Mall NPS issued permits for two symbolic tent cities to highlight the plight of the homeless but denied request that people could sleep in the tents Gov39t Interest maintaining parks in an attractive and intact condition available to the millions who wish to see them and enjoy them by their presence Symbolic expression of this kind may be forbidden or regulated if the conduct itself may constitutionally be regulated if the regulation is narrowly drawn to further a substantial governmental interest and if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of free speech What did justice Marshall joined by justice Brennan have to say in their dissent The Court39s disposition of this case is marked by two related failings First the majority is either unwilling or unable to take seriously the First Amendment claims advanced by respondents Contrary to the impression given by the majority respondents are not supplicants seeking to wheedle an undeserved favor from the Government They are citizens raising issues of profound public importance who have properly turned to the courts for the vindication of their constitutional rights Second the majority misapplies the test for ascertaining whether a restraint on speech quali es as a reasonable time place and manner regulation In determining what constitutes a sustainable regulation the majority fails to subject the alleged interests of the Government to the degree of scrutiny required to ensure that expressive activity protected by the First Amendment remains free of unnecessary limitations What is public forum analysis By 1983 the Court moves to a new analysis of public property and its classi cation of use What are the three types of public property recognized by the Court in public forum analysis The quotthreepart public forum rulequot 1 Quintessential public property public parks public squares streets sidewalks 2 Public property that the state has opened for expressive activity Not normally public forums however if the government unit responsible opens it for the public public forum rules apply eg National Parks 3 Public property that is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication eg military bases jails Now this testanalysis must be the rst step in reviewing the circumstances of each case prior to reviewing other factors such as compatible use If the expression in question doesn39t pass this 3part test no further consideration is needed This didn39t eliminate quotcompatible usequot just moved it to a secondary consideration Dissenters on the court believe this test places too much emphasis on the forum place and makes it too easy to restrict speech in nontraditional yet public areas What are the compatible use and the basic incompatibility rules Which is more protective of First Amendment expression De ned by justice Thurgood Marshall quotThe crucial question in whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular timequot What was the effect of the Court39s decision in Ward v Rock Against Racism on quotleast restrictive meansquot analysis city39s attempt to regulate the volume of ampli ed music at the bandshell so the performances are satisfactory to the audience without intruding upon those who use the Sheep Meadow or live on Central Park West and in its vicinity The city39s regulation requires bandshell performers to use sound ampli cation equipment and a sound technician provided by the city Rock Against Racism respondent in this case is an unincorporated association which in its own words is quotdedicated to the espousal and promotion of antiracist viewsquot Issues in the past with police because of noise complaints RAR warned but did not control volume levels in 1984 concert When they sought to hold another concert the event permit was denied After respondent agreed to abide by all applicable regulations the parties reached agreement and a permit was issued quotLeast restrictive meansquot a regulation of the time place or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government39s legitimate contentneutral interests but that it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so The requirement of narrow tailoring is satis ed quotso long as the regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulationquot What did the Court say about forced inclusion of an organization in a public place in Hurley v IrishAmerican Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston 1995 Whether Massachusetts may require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey forced inclusion We hold that such a mandate violates the First Amendment He reasoned that even though the Council did not have a narrow set message that it was intending to convey the parade nevertheless constituted a message that the Council had a right to protect The Council had been fairly unrestrictive in its guidelines for determining which groups to allow to participate in the parade he said this did not necessarily mean that the Council waived its right to present its message in a way it saw t Of primary concern to the Court was the fact that anyone observing the parade could rationally believe that those involved in the parade were all part of an overriding message Souter wrote that the Council could not statutorily be prohibited from excluding the messages of groups it did not agree with nor could it be forced to endorse a message against its will What happened in Tinker v Des Moines 1968 Group of adults and students determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year39s Eve The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands On December 14 1965 they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted On December 16 Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools John Tinker wore his armband the next day They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired that is until after New Year39s Day The court referred to but expressly declined to follow the Fifth Circuit39s holding in a similar case that the wearing of symbols like the armbands cannot be prohibited unless it quotmaterially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the schoolquot The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment quotSpeechquot verbal communication quotSpeech plusquot verbal communication LOW In other words speech interwoven with action The action may cause the expressive activity to have fewer protections than quotpurequot only verbal or written speech Symbolic Expression Nonverbal in nature May range in action from mere display of symbols to actual kinetic conduct dance Many many cases having to do with patriotic symbols the United States ag or instruments of government military draft cards American ag hung upside down extreme distress or danger Children not forced to salute the ag or give pledge of allegiance
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'