Study Guide for Chapter Nine
Study Guide for Chapter Nine COM 250
Popular in Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Communication Studies
This 0 page Study Guide was uploaded by Natalie Land on Wednesday December 9, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to COM 250 at University of Miami taught by Samuel Terilli in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 86 views. For similar materials see Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics in Communication Studies at University of Miami.
Reviews for Study Guide for Chapter Nine
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: 12/09/15
Chapter 9 Time Place and Manner Restrictions Now we are dealing with context not content 0 Manner of expression as in how it is expressed 0 Where it is expressed 0 When it is expressed le 0 Ann in a living room screams fire this is okay 0 Ann in a diner screams fire this is not okay Time Place Manner Restriction rules that regulate when how and where a message is expressed Back in History 0 Time place manner rules Signi cant rules not developed until the 19305 but before these rules government was free to control restriction on expression in public property based on whatever 0 Case Number One Davis vs Massachusetts What Davis wanted to preach in public place Boston Common The Massachusetts ordinance said that they could forbid public speaking on a highway or public park the way a person forbids certain speech in hisher own home The court agrees to the ordinance Added also that the use of permits for speech in public places was necessary 0 Case number two Hauge v Committee for Industrial Organization Public labor organizations and New Hampshire ordinance The new Hampshire ordinance prohibited labor organizations the right to lease property for public meetings mainly because 0 They were communist or communist organizations 0 Also they wanted to prevent the distribution of lea ets Result certain properties have always been used for market place of ideas such as streets and sidewalks but the court could still regulate as long as it didn t completely deny the freedom of expression on public grounds 0 Case number three Schneider v State 308 US 0 What the people have the right to public communication on streets but government could regulate if the expression intervenes with things such as traf c regulations 0 This case was important for present day test while the hague case was important in breaking away from the davis ruling 0 Cities could regulate speech but had to have a reasonable reason 0 Also preventing all littering for example was insuf cient validity but rather instead arresting the actual litterers was better 0 Case Number Four What Three jehovahs witnesses were soliciting religious purposes on streets without an approval of secretary of public welfare Were convicted and the supreme court reversed the conviction Understood state interest in preventing fraud but believed that issuing permits would not x this problem of fraud 0 Rather the court said that people who were soliciting for religious purposes for example just had to present themselves with an identity of who they are and establish the authority to soicitite 0 Case number Five Cox v New Hampshire Parade by the Jehovahs witnesses on sidewalks in Manchester 0 Convicted for not having a license to do so 0 Court agrees with this conviction based on saying that it was a valid reason for parade permits because maybe there was parade overlaps if their was no permits 0 The Test we use now 0 Three prongs The regulation and prohibition has to not be based on the meaning that s being delivered o It has to be content neutral The regulation is based on saving and protecting a substantial government interest Alternative ways to deliver the messages have to be offered and given to the expressers 0 Case Number Six Grayned v City of Rockford Grayned convicted for public demonstration of protest negro students protesting next to school grounds 0 Convicted based on the antinoise ordinance and the antipicketing ordinance Government cannot restrict activity based on the message but rather on the nature of the place time and manner of the message 0 Reason 1 0 basic incapability test regulations are only allowed if the activity or expression isn t compatible with normal activity at a given place and at a given time loud noise disrupts educational mission of school 0 Reason 2 o Is the regulation content neutral The purpose behind the regulation has nothing to do with the meaning of the message Cant punish because of what they are saying Content neutral if Rockford allowed classical music but not rap music this is not content neutral 0 Reason three o Is regulation tailored to improve government interest One test was the least restrictive test 0 Does regulation further government interest with the least possible restriction being used 0 Example arresting litterers instead of preventing the passing of lea ets least restrictive Another test was effectiveness rule 0 Test now used 0 The restriction doesn t have to be the most effective or only effective just has to be effective Reasoun Four o Are there adequate alternate channels of communication If restriction is imposed is there another way to effectively get the message across 0 This is a problem because message on public park reaches a lot of people while message one to one isn t as effective 0 Also sometimes the mode of expression has a speci c reason for being and value as to why its that speci c mode 0 Case Number Seven Clark v Communication for Creative non violence 0 What wanting to sleep at national park to protest homelessness Ordinance said they couldn t sleep but could spend all night put their posters and stuff and protest all day 0 But would it give same message 0 The Forum held in Trust for Public Expression Public Forums de ned by Historical Usage 0 Case Number Eight United States vs Grace 0 Mary grace stood on sidewalk in front of supreme court building and displayed a large sign containing a verbatim text oft he rst amendment 0 Two years earlier another guy positioned himself on same location handing out lea ets regarding the removal of unit judges from the bench They were both convicted because the display of any ag banner etc to bring public notice on supreme court grounds was not allowed 0 Supreme court applied the three prong test because sidewalks were a public forum Using property s historical function to determine a public forum 0 If the expression on public property is not incompatible with that property s regular use then government has to justify any restriction made for speech on that public property 0 Rest is conclusion in book
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'