New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Week 3

by: Laura Castro Lindarte
Laura Castro Lindarte

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Week 3 notes.
Media Law
William L. Youmans
Class Notes
Media, Law
25 ?




Popular in Media Law

Popular in Journalism and Mass Communications

This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Laura Castro Lindarte on Saturday September 17, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to SMPA 2173 at George Washington University taught by William L. Youmans in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 6 views. For similar materials see Media Law in Journalism and Mass Communications at George Washington University.

Popular in Journalism and Mass Communications


Reviews for Week 3


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: 09/17/16
September 13, 2016  The 1st Amendment: Theory and Reality (P.2)   ● Strict Scrutiny: ​government interest should be compelli​ arrowly tailored/least  restrictive, ​used with content­based   ○ Not automatic that strict will be unconstitutional, one to one basis  ● Intermediate scrutiny: ​government interest should be importa​ ubstantially  related/narrowly tailored for incidental ef​ ontent­neutral, symbolic content, public  forums etc.   ● Rational review: ​government interest should be legitima​ easonable means to be an  end/rationally­related, ​law of general application, economic, commerce   ● Political speech: elections and campaign finance   ○ Strict scrutiny because is related to what 1st amendment  and the Constitution is  about   ○ Debate on whether giving money is political speech or not  ○ Campaign finance: DEREGULATION   ■ Buckley v. Valeo (1976): ​upheld government law that limited and said that  campaign spending is political speech  a. Limiting campaign spending has harms   ■ BCRA (2002): ​ ct limiting campaign spending   a. Ban on soft money and corporate and donation communication 30  days of election   b. If only looking at issue okay but actively supporting or opposing  candidate is not  c. McConnell rule upheld BCRA because party group could not  advertise   ■ FEC v. Wisconsin Right of Life (2006​ d­hoc ruling, ad was punished but  court said that banning ad would decrease political speech of  organizations   ■ Citizenship United v. FEC (2010)​ uilds PRECEDENT, brought down ban  on independent organization giving money and ads   ■ v. FEC (2010): s​ uper PACs increased as places where  independent corporations could give money   ○ State regulations:   ■ Randall v. Sorrell (2006​ ourt brought down Vermont law limiting how  much money candidates can spend in their campaign because it did not  allow them to campaign efficiently   ■ Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000): ​if narrowly tailored,  regulations can continue  ● FEC can still have ​public exposure of donation and other reporting requirements   ● Anonymous Speech: ​mixed view (recognize tradition to protect it but in certain  circumstances it is not protected)   ○ Looked at through ad­hoc  ○ McIntyre v. Ohio: ​McIntyre didn’t put name on pamphlet which broke Ohio law,  Supreme Court said not narrowly­tailored to control bad speech so not okay  ○ Doe v. Reed: ​state referendum on gay marriage so needed petition with  signatures and organization wanted signatures to be released, l​ ower court said  that giving signatures help validate elections of referendum, i​ ntermediate  scrutiny, no autonomous in ballot   ■ Different because McIntyre had no clear government interest, strict  scrutiny  ■ To check that there are no fake signatures   ● Government speech: ​speech by government or government officials   ○ Not okay if you say it while on the job, not much protection as government official   ○ Pleasant Grove City v. Summun: ​court said that government gets to chose what  monuments they put in public space   ○ Garcetti v. Ceballo​ nly protected if the speech occurs as civilian not during  their civic duties   ● 1st amendment will ​ OT PROTECT FROM PRIVATE   ● Public and private forum:   ○ Transitional public foru​ IGHEST level of right, areas that have historically  been there for use of peopl​ overnment can set up rules to  regulate/administrative ​(good if content­neutral)   ■ Sometimes one place can be multiple type of forums   ○ Designated public forum: ​can be used for public use with a ​ sometimes  public, other times it is not) → ​government property   ○ Private property as public foru​ igh degree of public interactions so  quazi­public, ​courts says that owners can have to allow it   ■ Pruneyard Shopping case: ​ eens actions don’t harm owner of shopping  center so okay   ○ Virtual forum: ​non­physical example of government funding for expression okay  as long as neutral​ oney­based forum   ○ Laws of general application​ inimum review   ● Compelled Speech: ​forcing someone to stand with something   ○ “Life free or di​ ourt said that okay not to show slogan on license plate   ○ Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade: ​LGBT wanted to be part but organizers said  no, court said that LGBT community could find other ways to show message  because ​compelling organization to have to show representation of message  they won’t support       September 15, 2016  Speech Distinctions (P. 1)   ● Free speech is not absolute​ hese exceptions show border of when okay and when it is  not   ● National Security:   ○ Different to government in issues of national security   ■ During time of conflict government may pass laws to limit speech (courts  differ more)   a. No tests for time instability or stability no declaration of war or  clear beginning and end   b. Unclear especially in was of terrorism because invisible enemy  (not state)  ○ Holder v. Humanitarian law project:   ■ Material support: giving resources and money   ■ Teaching terrorist group how to appeal to humanitarian law to show ideas   ■ Non­violent training b​ upreme Court said that providing support (of any  type) will help them since saves them money   ■ Can be turned down later   a. Lines can shift: now PKK is an ally of government vs. ISIS so get  money   ○ U.S. Patriot Act: ​2001   ■ Post­911: ​give money power to law enforcement to look after terrorists,  amendment 15 existing codes of criminal, wiretap and immigration  ■ Sec 206: increase surveillance of electronic communication   a. Might affect free speech because will be paranoid of what you say   ■ Sec 215: relaxes oversight of search warrants   a.  ​ ive government more latitude to get information  b. Anyone involved in search warrant would have to keep it secret   c. Companies didn’t have to expose what was happening  ● Court says that ​national security and maintaining public order is biggest government  interest   ○ Has been more controlled over time   ● Clear and present danger:​ WI ­ Cold War   ○ Schenck: ​anti­war activist pass out pamphlets to go against ​ ormally  wouldn’t be problem but during war then it goes against national int​ WWI)   ■ You can’t shout “fire” in a theater   ■ Based on context  ■ Goes from obvious war to ideological war   ○ Debs: ​convicted for saying “you are fit for something better…,” he said that it was  political speech  ■ Having political status actually made his remarks more dangerous   ■ Anti­war effort   ○ Abrams  ○ Gitlow: socialists writing might led to revolt   ○ Witney: ​ embership in communist party,​ embership alone is not enough need  more proof   ○ Smith Act: okay to say government overthrown is not real proof   ■ Just saying it is not enough   ○ Clear and present is too broad and can be used for political activity and social  change   ● Brandenburg (or incitement) test:   ○ Brandenburg wanted to take revenge against government but is speech the  same thing as political conspiracy   ○ Advocacy of illegal activity can be punished if:   ■ Directed toward INCITING ​(let’s do something)   ■ Immediate (​ lets do something NOW)   ■ ILLEGAL action   ■ Likely to produce that action   ● Offensive speech: ​speech that shoves senses   ○ Cohen v. California: ​guy’s jacket was offens​ ourt said that F­word needed to  convey emotion   ■ Cursing could be needed for political speech to be effective   ● Fighting words: ​language directed at individual   ○ Chaplinsky v. News Hampshire: ​jehovah witness insult co​ ourt upheld by  government saying that not important  a. Context is important   ○ Terminiello v. Chicago​ riest makes speech and makes crowd want to be  aggressive, ​that is what words should do (cause emotion)  ● Hate Speech: ​speech that is based on category of people (religion, race etc)  ○ Usually unconstitutional because of strict scrutiny, only criminalize when tagged  with action    ○ R.A.V v. St. Paul: ​teens set cross on fire on African American’s front yard   ■ Supreme Court said that law was too narrow and could be used to punish  more   ● Harmful Images:   ○ U.S. v. Stevens: ​Stevens make videos of dog fighting which broke fed law  prohibiting video of animal har​ ourt said that is okay because not doing action  but showing (didn’t want new category)   ● Intimidation and true threats:   ○ Virginia v. Black: ​cross­burning in multiple h​ ourt said okay because it is  true threat (speech to cause fear of listener)   ■ Different from teen case because different law, also a history of violence   ○ Elonis v. U.S: ​shows murky lines in true threat, Elonis began to post explicit lyrics  against wide who left him and scared wife   ■ Complicated because of subjective vs objective intent (reasonable  person)   ■ Lower court said that reasonable person would see threat   ■ Court said that needed to be subjective intent (actual state of mind to do  crime)   a. Objective = outsider, subjective = what he intended                              


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.