Media Law

Valentine v. Christensen 1942 (Commercial Speech)

E.F. Chrestensen wanted to hand out flyers advertising submarine tours. The police commissioner said no because it was “commercial” speech and violated a city ordinance. Chrestensen reprinted them with a political message on the backside and tried again.

• Issue: Did this prohibition violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech?

• Ruling: The Court ruled against Chrestensen, holding that purely commercial advertising is not protected by the First Amendment.

• Significance: This was the first major Supreme Court case to distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech, laying the foundation for future cases that would revisit and eventually expand protections for commercial expression

Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Services Commissions 1980 (Commercial Speech)

Causes involving commercial speech bans, the court must decide the following:

1.Information is illegal and misleading;

2.Government has substantial interest;

3.If yes, the ban advances government interest;

4.Does ban have acceptable restrictions or is it excessive?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) (commercial speech)

Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Gov- ernment to make. "The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it."

Reno v. ACLU 1997 (obscenity)

Criminalized the “knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages to any recipient under 18”..."that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."

the o’brien test

The O’Brien Test

1.Does the government have the power to enact the regulation?

2.Does it further an important or substantial governmental interest?

3.Is this interest unrelated to free speech (content-neutral)?

4.Is the restriction the least restrictive approach to free speech?

Tinker v. Des Moines school (student speech/press)

This landmark Supreme Court case addressed the First Amendment rights of students in public schools. In 1965, a group of students, including John and Mary Beth Tinker, wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school suspended them, prompting a legal challenge.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Tinkers, stating that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court held that the armbands were a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment and that the school could not censor student expression unless it caused substantial disruption to the educational environment.

Tinker Test

Tinker set a precedent for student speech in public schools.

1. Causes (or is likely to cause) a substantial disruption to the school’s operation, or

2. Infringes on the rights of other students.

public schools.

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L(Student speech/press)

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhmeier (Student speech/press)

Kuhlmeier and student press at the school published an article about pregnancy and divorced. Principal stopped the publication of the article because he believe the content was inappropriate.

The court ruled in favor of the principal because they believe that schools have the right to censor since the school/principal is considered the publisher.

Morse v. Frederick (student speech/press)

The Bongs hits 4 Jesus case.

Joseph Frederick, held up a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during a school-supervised event outside school grounds. The principal, Deborah Morse, suspended him, saying the banner promoted illegal drug use.

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the school, stating that schools may restrict student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use, even if the speech occurs off-campus at a school event.

Hosty v. Carter, (student speech/ press)

Subsidized student newspapers can be    subjected to censorship.

What did Miller v. California (Obscenity) create?

Material is considered obscene if 1) “the average person, applying contemporary community standards finds that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interests; 2) does the material depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and 3) does the material, taken as a whole, “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”