Studied by 5 people
Seditious Libel Laws
Colonial Law
Punished citizens who criticized government
Prior Restraint Laws
Colonial Laws
Needed approval to publish about the government or the Church
Trial of John Peter Zenger
Willingly said he wrote about the governor while on trial, but jury said he was not guilty of crimes.
Jury did not like the law and did not think they were fair, so this was their protest to it
*Jury Nulification*
Community Censorship
Public sang what you should or should not do
EX: “Cancelling” someone online
Heckler’s Veto
Crowd does not like what speaker is saying and disrupts them until they leave
What are the five freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights?
Freedom of Press
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Right to peacefully assemble
Right to petition government for grievances
Absolutist Theory
If anything infringes on 1st amendment right, it is considered unconstitutional
No current Supreme Court Justice hold this idea
Ad Hoc Balancing Theory
Does not use precedent in ruling - case by case decision
Very unsettled law, cannot predict outcome
No current Supreme Court Justices hold this idea
Preferred Position Balancing Theory
Balances first amendment with sixth amendment (right to a speedy trial)
Leans towards being pro first amendment
Current liberal Supreme Court Justices lean this way
Meiklejohnian Theory
Public v Private speech
Political speech (public) is always protected by first amendment
Anything not considered political by court/jury may be censored
Marketplace of Ideas Theory
The more opinions, the better
Society needs to see all opinions to form ideas and pick the best one
Chief Justice Roberts uses this when in favor of first amendment
Very popular in current Supreme Court
Critics Say:
It allows too much hate speech
The more resources you have, the more control of the media you have
Access Theory
If media will not voluntarily let groups/people/ideas on their airwaves, court can force them to air those views
Only applies to TV and radio
Newspapers/Internet ruling was struck down in Miami Herald v Tornillo
Self-Realization or Self-Fulfillment Theory
Protects act of speaking, not what is said
Does not matter what the person says - protects hate speech
Smith Act of 1951
Nicknamed the “Anti-Communist Act”
Took away freedom of speech of Americans during the Cold War
Alien and Sedition Act of 1798
Punishes both domestic and international terrorists
Espionage Act of 1917
Passed during WWI
Americans cannot interfere with the war effort
EX: Dodge the draft, Speak out against the Gov, etc.
Sedition Act of 1918
Passed during WWI
Made it illegal to publish anything disloyal/profane/lewd, etc. about the US Government, Constitution, flag or anything remotely American
Made putting the flag pattern on anything besides a flag illegal
Criminal Syndicalism
Could not fly a red (communist) or black (fascist) flag
Smith Act of 1940
Outlawed communism
In the 1990s, it began being used to prosecute terrorists
Clear and Present Danger Test
When and where the US can censor what you are saying (Is it a “clear and present danger”?)
Started being used to prosecute anyone who spoke out against the gov, against the demand of the Supreme Court
Schenck v US (1918)
Case that developed the clear and present danger test
Whitney v California (1927)
Clarifies clear and present danger test
Defendant did not create direct and immediate harm to the United States
Dennis v US (1951)
Creates idea of “free speech” and “evil speech”
Clarifies clear and present danger test
Yates v US
First clear and present danger case that the Supreme Court overturned
Creates difference between advocating for something v breaking the law to do that thing
EX: Hate speech is legal, but hate crimes are not
Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)
Defines difference between speech and producing lawless action
Entertainment companies use this to prove innocence in wrongful death lawsuits
EX: Song talks about killing someone is almost always okay until action by that person is taken
Strict Scrutiny
For video games only
There must be a very specific reason why it needs to be regulated
(Compelling interest/dire need)
Prior Restraint
Very hard to US for restrain any type of publication
Near v Minnesota (1931)
MN law allowing banning of malicious, defamatory info about the government was deemed unconstitutional
Big win for media companies then and now
Reason why gov has very little chance of winning a censorship battle
Pentagon Papers (1971)
Supreme court ruled 6-3 allowing New York Times and Washington Post to publish classified info that was obtained from the White House without their knowledge
Court decided there was no “compelling need” to stop the publication
Injunction
Must stop publishing something until the court tells you otherwise
EX: The Pentagon Papers case
Note 
Flashcard (22)