JOURN 4000 1nd EditionExam #2 Study Guide Lectures: 1 -7Lecture 14-Exercising rights-First Amendment right to free expression, to association-Under that is the right to protestMichael Brown- Jury will decide if policeman should stand trial-Grand jury is being recorded -Usually secret-Prosecutor might release audioJournalists covering Mike Brown caseResisting arrest- if you have your civil rights violated, 42 US C Section 1983 cause of action-Resisting arrest is illegal no defense for it-Government may restrict time, place, and manner of expression-1st Amendment means the government has no power to restrict because of message, content, etc.--> content control-Has to be non-discriminatory Public forums:-Must rights if an area has been designated a public forum -Right to require parade permits-Can’t be a discriminatory policy-Civil Rights March on Washington under injunction not to do so-You may not violate a court order bottom line contempt of court-Have to appeal and get another court to overturn decision-Ordinance? Can violate an ordinance/legislative actAbortion protests- Pro-Life Anderson name legally changed, protests -How to protect rights of people like Anderson and women1988- Frisby vs. Schultz -Starts as a protest in Milwaukee-Protestors target home of doctor providing abortions town decided to support doctor-Ordinance said that all picketing that targets a home can be banned-Protection of home and peace and privacy-Also, public safety -Supreme Court ruled against the picketers-SC said ordinance was content neutral -Narrowly tailored? Restriction doesn’t go any further than is necessary? Court asking if there are alternatives for getting out your message -Ordinance only prohibits picketing that targets a specific residence -Ordinance serves a significant government interest -Sanctity of the home -Captive audience Can’t escape the message, court normally says move, but home is the ultimate escape from a message, ultimate retreatMadeson Case- abortion clinic -36 foot buffer zone around clinic entrance -Signs are ok, but there is zero tolerance for threats-Buffer zones -Wichita 2009- doctor shot and killed Nuremberg files-provided home addresses of abortion providers in the US -Many on the list have been killed 18 United States Code Section 248- no one can interfere with reproductive health services -Threat of force what reasonable person considers a reasonable threat-Court did not tell ACLA to take website down is allowed -Michael Campbell first person tried under Title 18 (Section 875)-Government need only to prove that defendant intentionally transmitted communication in interstate commerce, and circumstances were as such that a reasonable person would consider it a threat -General intent crime don’t have to have the intent to carry out, just to transit the communication Boos vs. Berry- Ordinance prohibited display of negative signs concerning foreign governments within 500 feet of their embassy-Strict scrutiny test- narrowly tailored, substantial government interest (Russia and Nicaragua in this case)-SC dignity interest, law is a violation of 1st Amendment, content based restriction Lecture 15- Strict scrutiny:-Public forum-Content-based restriction 2-part test:1. Significant government interest 2. Narrow tailoring-Also, ample alternativesSolicitations protected speech-Hare Krishnas at airport terminals? Supreme Court said they did not have a right to seek donations-Impede flow of airport terminal not public forums Solicitations in post offices ban on solicitation City buses no discrimination (no political ads, etc.)Change the Climate-Can’t demean other religions-Advertising on school buses? Voting- 25 feet in Missouri, no soliciting, campaign free zoneParks Chicago legalization of marijuana permits to use city parks specific resaons to deny permitsBrown vs. Louisiana 1966- Segregated libraries-Arrested for breech of peace-SC overturned conviction-Public library is public forum so long as protest wasn’t inconsistent with primary purpose as a library1987- Shantytown on the Quad-Is it a public forum? Students arrested for trespassing- Defendants won Quad is a public forum-Protesting is a right, but there are ground rulesO’Brien Case- protesting the draft on courthouse steps (public forum)-Burned draft cards form of symbolic speech (federal crime to do so)-If government regulation impacts expression, it has to pass the O’Brien test:1. Regulation is within Constitutional power of government2. Further an important gov. interest3. Gov. interest has to be unrelated to suppression of expression4. Incidental restriction is narrowly tailoredFlag burning- 1989- Texas vs. Johnson-Denouncing Reagan-Convicted of desecration of venerated object -Flag burning was expressive conduct-Flunked 3rd part of O’Brien test -Cannot suppress just because society finds it disagreeable-Flag Protection Act of 1989-Amending the Constitution is the only way flag burning could be protected-Nude dancing as a form of symbolic expression-Can it be prohibited, yes-Glenn Theatre case (1991)- can prohibit nude dancing-Related to public nudity-City of Erie vs. Kandyland-Applies O’Brien test to justify ban of nude dancing-mooning as symbolic speech-Mercedes case only indecent exposure if genitals are exposed -Content based speech content neutral is city/state free to do any restriction no Lecture 16Content neutral ordinance doesn’t trigger strict scrutiny, but is it OK?Ledoux case- Gillio, not in favor of the Gulf War puts sign in yard opposing war, someone stole sign, complained to police, police said it was illegal to have that kind of sign-Prelim injunction, 1983 injunction-Then placed sign 8 ½ x 11, “For Peace In The Gulf”-City ordinance said no signs tells SC it is content neutral -SC some rights of expression are so important that it doesn’t make a difference if ordinance is content neutral right to express yourself on own property -1st Amendment doesn’t allow content neutral restrictions that constrict the opportunities for free expression -No replacement for this communication 1995- Capital Square, KKK wants to erect cross as apart of Christmas celebration told no -Board may regulate expression only if restriction is necessary and narrowly drawn to serve state interest -St Patrick’s Day in Boston Veteran’s Parade, gay pride group wants to join-Veterans say no