Media Law & Ethics Week 4
Media Law & Ethics Week 4 MC 4301
Popular in Media Law & Ethics
Popular in Journalism and Mass Communications
verified elite notetaker
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Callie Burnett on Saturday September 19, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to MC 4301 at Texas State University taught by Francis E. Walsh in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 31 views. For similar materials see Media Law & Ethics in Journalism and Mass Communications at Texas State University.
Reviews for Media Law & Ethics Week 4
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: 09/19/15
September 14 2015 M4 CASES need to know 1 Baron V Baltimore H CH2 1833 2 Gitlow V New York CH2 1925 3 Near V Minnesota CH2 1931 4 New York Times V United States 1971 CH2 39 First Amendment amp Prior Restraints 0 Noncontent speech based on activity rather than content 1 Regulation based on time place and manner To gain court approval for this kind of regulation they must 39 Advance a reasonable government interest Be content neutral with regard to the subject matteryou must not have an opinion on this Be reasonable and Not be used to ban or make practically impossible the speaker s ability to disseminate messages by alterative means 0 Examples of time place or manner activities Doortodoor solicitations Parades Demonstrations on public property 0 NonContent series of cases aimed at showing the development of the courts on distribution of literature and demonstrations What kinds of restricions 1938 Lowell v City of Grif n 0 1939 Schenider v State of New Jersey dealing with antiliterring laws Laws said persons needed police permission to distribute literature because of littering Court said states and cities could not punish the person handing out the literature to individuals who willingly accepted it Could punish those who throw it into the street Court also said police could not decide in advance because they might not be content neutral 0 1942 Jones v Opelokika involving 10 book agent license for all solicitors Court said officials must explain why any denials forced to be content neutral 0 2002 Watchtower Bible v Village of Stratton forced doortodoor canvassers to obtain 0 Non content and the question of where these activities can take place 0 00000 1946 Marsh V Alabama small town owned by Corporation Jehovah s Witness tried to pass out literature with out permission Court said Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion The more an owner for his advantage opens up his property 1968 Amalgamated Food Employees Local 590 V Logan Valley Plaza labor dispute involving merchant in shopping center Followed Marsh ruling 1872 Lloyd Corp v Tanner antiVietnam War protestors wanting to pass out literature in large shopping center Court ruled the owners could stop the demonstration Backed away from Logan 1976 Hudgens v NLRB employees of store picketing store in shopping center Total reversal of Logan 1St and 14th Amendments to not apply on private property 1980 Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins High school students distributing literature at shopping center California courts said this could be done and that a state can have more liberal rights than US constitution Other states have followed does not apply to standalone stores 1994 City of Ladue v Gilleo Right of individual to use own private property for 1St Amendment expression Missouri ordinance barred almost all signs in front yards Citizen had sign protesting Persian Gulf Way Court said ordinance was illegal 2015 Reed v Town of Gilbert 90 SC decision over ruling town ordinance saying 9 signs announcing time and place of church meeting did not meet ordinance standards did not meet compelling state interest Since Reed case ballot selfies once banned now unconstitutional 2001 Golden Gateway Center v Golden Gateway Tenants Association California Court rejected any right to distribute literature inside a large gated apartment compleX Court said Pruneyeard did not apply unless private property is clearly free and open to the public A combo of first amendment rights amp contract law Hate speech Can a government ban speech even if it is offensive on the bases of race gender or sexual orientation 1942 Chaplinsky v New Hampshire Court set forth the Fighting Words Doctrine Court said calling someone a dammed fascist amounted to hate speech could lead to violence Court upheld conviction 1971 Cohen v California 1992 RAV St Paul Modern rule 1993 Wisconsin v Mitchell 2003 Virginia v Black Flag burning 1989Texas V J ohnson ag burning at Republican National Convention 39 54 decision ag burning protected form of symbolic speech especially in political context 0 Constitutional Amendment House Joint Resolution 10 states The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the at of the United States Must be adopted by twothirds of the states Would give Congress power QUIZ WED CHAPTER 3 sample question on tracs 1942 Valentine V Christensen Supreme Court announced the commercial Speech doctrine 39 Lea ets advertsing tours or submarine 39 New York City banned with antilittering ordinance 39 Supreme Court upheld ban saying the constitution imposes no such restraints on government as respects purely commercial adverting 39 Note 1930 Schneider case and use of other side of submarine lea et 1964 NY Times v Sullivan Fullpage as placed by civilrights group asking for money to pay legal fees of Martin Luther King Signed by leaders in the South 39 ad contained some false information cafeteria some names included did not have permission Supreme Court creates two kinds of advertisements 39 Commercial Speech no 1st Amendment protection for advertisements that seek to sell products or services Editorial Advertisements full 1st Amendments protection for advertisements that are editorial in nature and provide information important to the consuming public SC said That the Times was paid for publishing the advertisement is as immaterial in this connection as is the fact that newspapers and books are sold any other conclusion might shut off an important outlet for the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities 1973 Pittsburg Press v Pittsburgh Human Rights Commission Commission ordered the newspaper to stop using job classifying employment as j obs Male interest and jobs Female interest Supreme Court said it was commercial speech involving an illegal commercial activity The change begins 1975 Bigelow V Virginia advertisement offering abortions that were legal in NY Supreme Court distinguished this case from Pittsburgh in that it was a legal activity New doctrine Message does not lose its I st Amendment simply because it appears in an advertisement Must be a compelling state interest to justi z laws prohibiting any form of commercial speech that has legitimate purpose 1976 Virginia State Board of Pharmacy V Virginia Citizens Consumer Board Supreme Court overturned state law against advertising the prices of drugs 1977 Linmark Association v Willingboro for sale signs on lawns of homes for sale Court overturned town ordinance 197 7 Carey v Population Services International court overturned variety of state statutes that restricted advertising of contraceptive devices New commercial speech test 1980 Central Hudson Gas and Electric v Public Service Commission of New York state commission prohibited advertising by utilities that might encourage energy consumption rather than conservation 1 lawful activity 2 whether government interest is substantial enough to justify restriction 3 regulation directly advances government interest 4 the regulation is more broad than needed to fulfill government interest 1986 Pacific Gas amp Electric Co v Public Utilities Commission of California 39 Commision ordered utility to include watchdog information in their newsletter to customers 39 SC said newsletter has full 1st Amendment protection and could reject watchdog materials 1993 Cincinnati v Discovery Network City prohibited newsrack displays of commercial literature while allowing newspaper vending machines Supreme Court overturned the city ordinance because there was not reasonable t between a legitimate government purpose and the action taken 2003 Nike v Kasky California 39 Nike statements in PR campaign Commercial speech or editorial comments 39 Kasky California consumer activist sued Nike under California false advertising law regarding working conditions in Asia child laborO 39 Nike responded with press releases letters to editors and to university presidents California limited purpose test to determine Whether speech s commercial or noncommercial The speaker The audience The message California supreme court and Nike speech was commercial 39 Settled out of court 15 to workers group 1978 First National Bank V Bellotti Supreme Court overturned state law that forbade corporate advertising for or against ballot measures
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'