module 8 - hate speech cases

handyside vs. uk

book w/ controversial advice for kids was banned under UK obscenity laws

ECHR upheld the ban bc of the state’s MOA

FOE must include views that offend, shock, or disturb doe

jersild vs. denmark

journalist was convicted for publishing the racist actions of interviewees.

court said this violated article 10 — journalists cannot be punished for actions of the public lol

lingens vs. austria

journalist was convicted of defamation for dissing the chancellor

echr held that public figures must be able to tolerate high levels of criticism; this violates a10

animal defence international vs. UK

political advocacy ad was banned from TV bc of a campaign finance restriction

ECHR upheld the ban to avoid the wealthy dominating public discourse

new york times co vs. sullivan

public official sued NYT over civil rights ad with facual errors

supreme court create an “actual malice” clause for public official defamation expanding press protection

brandenbhurg vs. ohio

kkk leader was convicted for inciting violence at a rally

court ruled speech = protected since it didn’t incite imminent lawless action (this lead to a refining FOE laws)

tinker vs. des moines

students were suspended for wearing armbands that supported vietnam war

they were supported UNLESS they cause disruption

texas vs. johnson

man was convicted for burning a flag during a protest

court supported the man bc burning a flag is protected under the 1st amendment