POLS 206 1st Edition Lecture 8Outline of Last Lecture I. Civil LibertiesOutline of Current Lecture II. Freedom of Speech/Expression: MinorsIII. Freedom of Speech/Expression: obscenity and limits on obscenityIV. Freedom of the PressV. Rights of the Accused Current Lecturel. Freedom of Speech/Expression: Do minors have this?a. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)- essentially, the court decided minors do not their first Amendment Right past school doors but can have them outside of it (children can protest politically)b. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)- can children use Freedom of the Press? Not with a school newspaper. It is censored because inlocoprentes, for the students are not adults and so the school has authority over minors, the school becomes like parents over students.c. Morse v. Frederick (2007)- Do minors have Freedom of Political Expression? Yes, BUT to an extent. You can make a valid speech, as long as not harmful to them or others. Then the speech becomes not valid (an unprotected speech), especially in this case, where students were making a drug speech, but using religion as a cause. Drugs are illegal to minors, thus proved not valid. ll. Freedom of Speech/Expression: obscenity and limits on freedom of speecha. Miller v. California (1973)- Obscenity of a work of art in a public setting:i. The average person wanting contemporary standards sees the overall work to be prurient interest (arousing/appealing to sexual desire) ii. The work shows or is depicted in a way that is blatantly offensive way, forms of sexual conduct specifically illegal by anti-obscenity laws (the community passed laws saying the work of art cannot be shown)iii. The work overall does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (the SLAP test) or else the work is protected.b. Limitations on Freedom of Speechi. In commercial speech/advertising: must correctly tell people and the interest of the government must be taken into account and looked overii. “Fighting Words” are illegal if the words are supposed to anger the listener so much so they lead to violence, such calling a listener “baby killer”. So not all words are protected. iii. Libel: published report of something untrue that hurts someone’s reputation or character. Slander: the public proclamation meant to charge someone with contempt, ridicule, or hatred. However it must be untrue, seek to hurt, and result in actual harm. If the speech does not fit all of those criteria then it is legal. lll. Freedom of the Pressa. Near v. Minnesota (1931)- Minnesota tried to pass Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, which allowed for censorship of scandalous and defamatory material. It was proved illegal because it is illegal to censor something just because someone does not like it, can not curb and idea before it is expressed. However, there was prior restraint only allowed in special cases of: during wartime, obscene material, and national security. b. New York Times v. United States (1971)- United States tried to say it was illegal to publish classified Pentagon Papers. The court look at the exceptions to the no-censorship rule and found publishing the Pentagon Papers violated none and so could NOT be censored. lV. Rights of the Accuseda. 4th Amendment: Rights against illegal Search and Seizure. Essentially, the authorities must have a legitimate reason for searching, though there are exceptions of when search warrants are not required. b. Search Warrants: i. The Exclusionary Rule: Mapp v. Ohio (1961)- the authorities were searching for illegal gambling equipment when they found illegal porn but could not charge for the porn because the warrant was not for that. The Good Faith Exception which allows room for some mistakes, no one’s perfect. ii. Warrantless Searches: The Carroll Doctrine- essentially means the authorities do not need a warrant if there is probable cause, the items they find can be used against you. c. 5th Amendment: Right against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)- Miranda Rights are read when the person is arrested and formally charged. d. 6th Amendment: The right to counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)-attorneys are accessible in felony
View Full Document
Unlocking...