FOE - Midterm 1

common law

• Inherited from Great Britain

• primarily created through disputes

• look at precedent and past disputes

civil law

• contrasting and in western areas

• comes from ancient Roman law

• mainly generated through codes

• written down codes/product of judicial science

sources of law = authority

• Top = US Constitution

• State Constitutions

• Statutes

small C common law

• day to do life

• 2 partied dispute in front of judge. judge looks at precedent and rules (stare decisis). predictable

administrative law

• administrative agencies. federal and state level. created by acts of congress/legislative to deal with specific area of life

• organic statute = Congress declares creating FCC and DOE

• independent speech

• executive orders

ali v. playgirl (1978)

• southern district of New York

• law of equity: money damages. injunctive relief.

• Playgirl = depictions of nude male and Muhammad Ali

  • face is Ali but body is not his. Without his content

  • his right of publicity was violated (tort)

  • asks for injunctive relief. he won

criminal law

• state (federal or state government) is trying an individual. must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime

• burden is on the state! high level of power that the state has to take away your liberty, life, money, etc.

lawsuits

• 2 private parties suing for money damages

• threats, defamation, invasion of privacy

• plaintiff (person suing)

• standard of proof = preponderance of the evidence

• (51%-49%)

has to be a federal question, diversity of citizenship

if you sue someone in federal court, 2 things must happen

form equality

US legal system follows _____. Everybody gets the same shot

snyder v. phelps

• Father of a dead soldier sues Fred Phelps (Westboro church leader) after they protested the funeral

• Tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (must prove person intentionally caused severe emotional harm)

• Snyder wins initially. SC overturns 8-1

  • Why? - 1st amendment. NO LAW respecting religion abridging the freedom of speech

john milton

• he was enamored by the marketplace of ideas

• let truth and falsity grapple. Truth will always win

• Why should we be afraid to let truth into the fight?

john stewart mill

• essay after the 1st amendment was ratified

• objective notion of truth. truth is more scientific

• always be willing to test our truth. not be afraid to put it to the test. if we are afraid, we are admitting falsity (our truth is weak)

schenck v us (1919)

• 1st case where 1st amendment was brought in front of SC

• involved a group of immigrants. they are mad we are fighting their homelands. goes to ammunition factory. go on strike!

• Espionage act is passed

  • We are speaking! Congress shall make NO LAW. SC heard case and rejected it (sides with US). Putting war effort at risk. Created clear and present danger for troops

espionage act

• forbade any kind of activity that benefited the enemy

• schenck and helpers arrested and charged for violating this

• federal law vs. person

abrams v US (1919)

• russian immigrants telling people to resist the draft

• charged with violating espionage act. hindering the war effort

• SC sides with US

• Oliver Wendell Homes Jr Descents (states should not come in. let market decide what truth should be)

marketplace of ideas

• competition of ideas to gain acceptance of rational human beings to search for truth

• don’t buy into those ideas “they rot on shelves”

safety valve

• we have extreme ideas

• allow these groups to speak to let off steam. releases pressure

• better we release it rather than letting it stew and simmer and have it explode with something violent

self governance

• against marketplace = we are emotional beings, we are not completely reasonable

• let’s not look at the market. let’s look at debate and microcauses

• A town hall meeting —> Alexander Micheal John

• Strong protection of speech in this country to have maximum participation in these debates

  • Let as many people as possible participate in these small debates

  • Flattening participation = Weakest voice has same power as strongest voice

individual fulfillment

• let’s not protect speech for instrumental means

• have as much freedom as possible to make mistakes and learn as much as possible

• power is locating speech within every individual

• criticism = doesn’t do anything about societal level. how do we come together and engage with each other beyond just looking out for each other

content based and content neutral

regulations of speech

content based regulations

• category/genre (any regulation of political speech)

• strict scrutiny test

  • compelling government interest (protecting human safety)

  • narrowly tailored (least restrictive means possible)

  • government almost always loses (“too strict” it is fatal)

• Cases

  • cohen v. California

viewpoint discrimination

• opinion of something within a genre (speech favoring a certain political candidate)

• Cases

  • texas v. johnson

  • RAV v st paul

  • state v van buren

cohen v california (1971)

• shirt that says “fuck the draft” in a courthouse

• people offended by vulgarity. he is arrested and charged with breach of peace

• state criminal law case. we are punishing him because he used the word “fuck”

• SC

  • court overturns his conviction

  • “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric”

  • “often captives outside of home and subject to objectionable speech”

texas v johnson (1984)

• communist supporter. protesting outside republican convention in Texas and burns an American flag

• he is arrested. Texas criminalizes flag destroying (punishable by fine/jail time)

• johnson says = this is viewpoint discrimination. SC 4-5 overturns his conviction

• strict scrutiny:

  • texas was trying to argue compelling government interest is harming the unity of America

  • banning burning the flag is not going to change his viewpoint

rav v st paul (1992)

• st paul had ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to display any type of sign/symbol of racial hatred

• RAV was a minor. burned cross on front yard of black family. arrested for violating the state ordinance

• RAV = this is unconstitutional law. SC overturns his conviction, applies strict scrutiny

state v van buren (vt) (2019)

• involves the sharing of non-consensual images (revenge porn)

• van buren shared images of his ex. she filed criminal complaint. stayed in state courts

• Strict scrutiny:

  • government interest: honoring autonomy for victims. protecting humans from severe emotional harm

  • further interest: goes after specific type of speech

  • narrowly tailored: Buren says: UNLESS there’s any form of political importance behind it, it does not fall in this exception

• this law survives strict scrutiny

content neutral regulations

• intermediate scrutiny (lower bar)

  • substantial government interest

  • law directly furthers that interest

  • interest is unrelated to suppression of expression

  • law burdens no more speech than is necessary

• cases

  • clark v CCNV (1984)

  • Terry jones

clark v ccnv (1984)

• a bunch of history at this national mall (seat of government, in front of cameras, political leaders, etc.)

• clark is head of the national parks service

• CCNV = community for creative non-violence. protest the policies of the Regan administration that affected the homelessness. camp out on national mall. administrative law = no camping overnight on national mall, park police arrest them and they sue clark

• SC

  • substantial interest = keep it looking nice

  • further interest = camping kills grass

  • unrelated to suppression = “camping is our message” court said no

  • burdens speech = can camp during the day. you can do many other things!

• CCNV loses

terry jones

• pastor of Florida decides to make anniversary of 9/11 national burning of Quaran day. ordinance made it a penalty to burn books

• content neutral

• the glue in the book burning = glue chancer

hague v cio

• extend of which the government can control its own property

• government can control their property, just like we can control ours

• banning a group of people holding political meetings in a public place violated group’s freedom

harry kalven

• 1st amendment advocate. law professor in Chicago

• In open democratic society, streets, parks, and other public places are important for public discussion and political process

• Public forum that the citizen can commandeer

public forum test

1. government control? does government control the property? do they manage it? is it paid by taxpayers?

2. function of the property. where does speech/expression fit into this? what are the main functions of this property?

3. label the forum

traditional public forums

• streets, parks, places where among the main functions speech/expression is very high on the list

• government can only regulate with a very light touch

• content-neutral regulations

• nothing to do with speech. alternative channels are left. limited regulations

• government can try to manage who is using the forum at one time, so they are not “double-booked”

designated public forum

• a space controlled by a government entity that the government explicitly says “you can use this for expressive activities”

• meeting room in IMU (any group can meet here. tell us how many people, when, how)

limited public forum

• limited purpose

• government control

• Ex. display case in a public university. exhibit for black history month. government controls this. purpose is limited = historical perspectives

• Ex. center for performing arts. purpose is limited to performances

• purpose = education, functionality, focuses on history, limited forum

non public forums

• better term = public non-forums

• expression is REALLY LOW on the priorities of the main functions of these spaces

• Ex. airport, public prison, military base

• paid by taxpayer dollars. have some expressive leeway, but it is not in main functions

private property

• in limited cases, private property can be a public forum

• deciding whether social media accounts of public officials, despite being private, is public

• cases

  • marsh v alabama (1946)

  • pruneyard shopping ctr. v robins (1980)

marsh v alabama (1946)

• chickasaw: town built near ship building corporation. we want to have workers near our facilities. we will give them houses, schools, parks, etc.

• workers did not like working conditions. picketing and arrested. “streets and parks are linked to expression”

• company says it is private and they own the space

• SC: These streets and parks, even if they are private, are functionally equivalent as the streets and parks in any other town

pruneyard shopping ctr v robins (1980)

• shopping mall in CA

• Pro-palestinian group wanted to protest their treatment by Israel. Goes to hold rally in mall, they are kicked out. “we don’t want this message here”

• what is a mall if not where people gather?

• SC: No. mall is private property. not functionally equivalent to a park/street

  • BUT - CA constitution says malls are public forums. Robins won in CA but lost on 1st amendment claim

knight v trump

• people said something countered to what Trump was tweeting and Trump blocked them

• knight sued the president. your twitter is a designated public forum. you are violating their 1st amendment rights

• dropped by Biden administration

• even though it is private account, when he became president, there was a transformation that made his account public

o’connor-radcliffe v garnier (2023)

• school board member posted on Facebook. public forum

• she solicits comments from members of the public and blocked people when they said something she didn’t like

• is this a member of the government engaging in viewpoint discrimination?

netchoice v paxton (5th circ 2022)

• texas passed a law that anyone that has a social media account of 25 million people. if they believe this platform has taken down their speech or censored, restricted, denied equal access, block ban, remove, deplatform. you can sue the platform

• what about my rights? - twitter

• 5th circuit upheld this law in Texas

• rights of citizens are greater than the company’s rights

netchoice sues florida

• texas attorney general (Paxton) says that this creates a marketplace of ideas

  • cannot take away service because you don’t like the user

• social media companies must be transparent

  • transparency report

  • take down viewpoint discrimination law

• circuit split

  • split between 2 circuit courts. SC does not like this. SC will likely step in

hurley v irish american GLB group of boston

• Irish GLB wants to be a part of big parade. “These are public streets! We should be entitled to them just like them!”

• “We don’t want to associate you with our message”

• SC: Sided with Hurley. This group had a 1st amendment right to use the streets/parks, but the group originally requested the space was a private organization

  • they can have whatever message they want. cannot force them to say something they don’t want to say

miami herald v tornillo (1974)

• miami herald = large, conservative newspaper in Miami

  • populated by immigrants. against communism. very conseravative.

• tornillo = democrat running for Congress in Miami area

• miami publicly bashed tornillo. tornillo says this isn’t fair, i should be able to respond. right to reply in florida = want to tell their side. miami herald must publish his response

• SC: sides with miami herald. right to make editorial judgements. law clashes with this and thus violates their 1st amendment right

schenck v US (1919)

• bad tendency test

  • very broad. court says this isn’t good enough

  • surely 1st amendment would not allow a person to falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater (cause a panic, stampede, not regarding lives of others around them)

• court evolved test = clear and present danger test

  • danger = terms of risk of harm. narrowed the scope

  • clear = right in front of us. would a reasonable person fight that the speech led to a present danger?

bradenburg v ohio (1969)

• further crystalizes clear and present danger test

• KKK leader marches on Washington in front of burning cross. He is arrested for organized crime (criminal case)

• SC: overturns his conviction

  • Incitement to imminent lawless actions test: Specific crime. RIGHT now. You MEANT to. You told them to

hess v indiana (1973)

• SC took case to add another layer onto incitement

• anti-war protest in Indiana. “We’ll take the fucking streets later”

  • charged with inciting violence

• SC: overturns his conviction. enough ambiguity

incitement post-hoc situation

• groups fighting each other. guy drives car into crowd. “could we not have foreseen this”

• city said it was going to revoke the unite the right’s permit for Lee Park. Speak at this park a mile away. court did not agree

heckler’s veto

• if police can silence the speaker, the law acknowledges a veto power in hecklers who can, by being hostile, get the law to silence any speaker of whom they do not approve

• cases

  • cantwell v connecticut (1940)

  • terminiello v chicago (1949)

  • edwards v south carolina (1963)

cantwell v connecticut (1940)

• Cantwell had phonograph that said “come to Jevohah’s witness. catholicism is the devil”

  • Bystanders are offended. Police arrest him

• Plants seeds for heckler’s veot

  • “easier to arrest hecker than person who makes threats”

terminiello v chicago (1949)

• large crowd. harder for police to make a decision

• priest who is racist, antisemitic, white supremist. speaking in auditorium

  • outside auditorium people are vandalizing. police arrest priest.

• marketplace of ideas

  • police can’t use bridge of peace statute because there is a hostile crowd outside. police needs to do better for crowd control

edwards v south carolina (1963)

• Blacks march towards courthouse to protest segregation (peaceful. crowds were hostile towards message)

• police can do one of two things:

  • 1. be neutral. let things happen. courts = please don’t let this turn into a battle

  • 2. “your message is wilding up this crowd. i am going to arrest you to protect you”

• SC:

  • overturns conviction. did not want to grant South “one gigantic heckler’s veto”

• Court in 1960s = We need to do better job at protecting civil liberties (groups who are using 1st amendment rights peacefully")

chaplinsky v new hampshire (1942)

• fighting words case

• jehovah’s witness. giving speech that other religions are the devil. police say he is disturbing peace. he yells in police’s face

• SC: Exception to 1st amendment = Fighting words. designed/intended to provoke immediate physical response. microlevel (between individuals)

bible believers v wayne co (en banc 2015)

• Arab American festival. street preachers with garish signs. arab youths walk by and get offended. not a strong police presence

• police = if you don’t leave we are going to arrest you

• court: overturned conviction and sided with bible believers. 8 said this is heckler’s veot. 7 said these are fighting words

• SC denied cert

true threats

• threaten someone. they think physical harm will come to them. they will soon become victim of physical harm. they REALLY mean it

• Cases

  • Watts v US (1969)

  • Virginia v Black (2003)

  • Elonis v US (2015)

  • Counterman v. Colorado (2023)

watts v us (1969)

• foundational case for threats

• against the draft

• “if they make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ (president)”

• statute against threatening president

  • Watts says this is viewpoint discrimination

  • SC overturns Watts’ convictions. Doesn’t trigger statute. Rhetorical hyperbole (look at context)

virginia v black (2003)

• criminalization of cross-burning

• Black is member of KKK and burned cross. “Is this a threat”

• Black challenges

  • Needs men’s rea for threats. this was political speech

Elonis v US (2015)

• What level of intent should prosecutors have to prove?

• Florida man who was divorced from his wife. said things on facebook about killing and dismembering his ex-wife

• SC took case: pushed back to lower courts

purposeful, knowingly, recklessness, negligence

4 levels of intent:

1. __ Malice and forethought. Planned. On purpose

2. __ Knew your actions were a crime. Not planned

3. __ Took an unsubstantiated risk. Risky to be a crime (driving 95 in 35 and hit someone)

4. __ Didn’t owe a duty of care. Someone was harmed by this

counterman v colorado (2023)

• state criminal law case

• counterman thinks he is best friends with celebrity. he began posting disturbing things to her account

• she moved away to get away from him. he is charged with stalking (cyber-stalking)

• Appeal to SC: Mental disease = he did not really know what he was doing

  • Have to understand his intent. Finally come up with an intent standard for threats

• Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person engaged in recklessness

civil threats cases

• Planned Parenthood of the columbia/wilamette v. ACLA (en banc. 2002)

• NAACP v. claiborne hardware (1982)

• Missouri v. Biden (2023)

planned parenthood of the columbia/willamette v acla (2002)

• anti-abortion group made website. list of doctors who perform abortions. if name was striked through, they were killed

• doctors sued website creators. “we are threatened.” Doctors won at lower court. Must prove they felt threatened and if a reasonable person find this threatening

• ACLA argues this is rhetorical hyperbole and political speech

• court says it is implied they are saying to kill the doctors

• SC denies cert

naacp v claiborne hardware (1982)

• boycotting

• naacp said boycott any business that segregates or we will rough you up. hardware lost business and sued

• SC sided with naacp. this is political speech and rhetorical hyperbole

missouri v biden (2023)

• biden adminisration tried using back channels to do better job at taking down posts that are false about COVID

• take this down or else

• they are sued. court said the tone was highly charged and communicated a vague threat (or else)

• they get a slap on the wrist

west va bd of ed v. barnette (1943)

• barnette (jehovah’s witness) refused to stand for pledge of allegiance

  • "I can’t revere this above God”

  • She is suspended. It is mandatory she be at school

• parents sue. SC sides with Barnette. Students have rights

tinker v des moines (1969)

• girl wore black armband to middle school to protest Vietnam War. it was seen as offensive. she wouldn’t take it off, and got in trouble. parents sued the school

• court: her “conviction” is overturned. “cannot shed people of their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate”

• tinker test

tinker test

• would a reasonable administrator at a public school expect that the student speech would lead to a substantial disruption to the learning environment

• court wanted to grant deference to administrators

• mere offense is not enough

bethel school district v fraser (1986)

• class clown nominated friend for student vice president at assembly

• he used a lot of sexual innuendos in his speech

• administration is pissed and suspend him

• lower courts side with Fraser. school appealed went to SC

• SC: sided with school. if student’s speech is sexually explicit in nature, they can punish the student. categorical exception

morse v. frederick (2007)

• school dismissed students to watch torch go by on way to SLC olympics

• banner says “bong hits 4 Jesus.” kids are suspended. parents sue

• lower courts side with Frederick. School appeals to SC

• SC: Sided with school. Categorical exception: Advocating for illegal drug use can be punished

eastern area school district v BH (en banc 2013)

• students wearing and selling “i heart boobies” around school

• raising money for breast cancer research. juvenile humor

• students are suspended and they sue the school

• court: this is not categorically banned. not enough to cause substantial disruption to learning environment

mahanoy school district v BL (2021)

• cheerleader posted “fuck school, fuck softball…” on snapchat story. she is suspended from cheer

• 3rd circuit = apply tinker, speech enters school environment and causes disruption. she can be punished for it

• SC: disagreed with 3rd circuit. Tinker should apply to online speech outside of school. her speech was not reasonably foreseeable to cause a disruption

hazelwood v kuhlmeier (1988)

• students publish newspaper. wanted to go above issues. teen pregnancy, divorced parents. principal pulls the story. Outside group asks to represent students

• argument = newspaper is public forum. viewpoint discrimination

• SC: this is a school activity. not a public forum. principal had learning purpose for taking out the stories

• states started passing new voices law (principals cannot do this unless it can cause a lot of harm)

greg lukainoff

• he wrote a book

• FIRE = foundation for individual rights in education

• push administration to protect students from controversial speech is going against expression of freedom of expression

• colleges need to allow more speech for the benefit of students

paul poritz

• he said that college/universities have a lot of different missions

  • research, entertainment, preparing for workforce

  • if schools want to manage public debate on their campuses, they have a right to

  • not same as public park/street

william brennan

• could NY college systems ban communists from teaching on college campuses?

• i have a 1st amendment right to believe what i want!

• expose students to wide range of ideas

• he is a court judge

free speech zones

• forum status

• designated areas

• some universities have put these in far places (to suppress messages)

inside

• __ speakers

• everybody from the university (teachers, students, administrators, etc.)

outside

• __ speakers

• doesn’t belong to university

• controversial speakers (require groups/individuals from inside to invite them in)

papish v missouri board of curators (1973)

• papish = grad student at school of journalism. published underground socialist newspaper. provocative. distribute to students. chose to distribute at memorial area

• title = “motherfucker acquitted”

• tours going on. she is put on academic probation

• she sued university and punishment was overturned

• “universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the 1st amendment”

young american’s foundation v kaler (2021)

• 8th circuit

• University of minnesota students invite shapiro to speak. reserved large auditorium. this auditorium has held a lot of progressive speakers. university says you can use this

• kaler (president) worried about protests in skyways. he says speak at different location

• shapiro sues: this is viewpoint discrimination

• district court: sided with university (you have mission of student safety). applied rational basis review

• shapiro appealed: Minnesota releases policy: large event policy: university will deny event proposal on basis of safety if it present clear and present risk to public health/safety. 8th circuit mooted case. no longer relevant

tatro v university of minnesota (2012)

• minnesota supreme court

• tatro = student in mortuary sciences program. bonds with cadaver. posts about him online. “i need to take out some aggression with trow car”

  • is she going to stab bernie, other student, ex?

• she signed form saying she wouldn’t post cadavers. you need to take aggression courses. she gets attention of liberty local groups and they sue

• Court: university’s interest is sufficient to uphold scrutiny

rosenberger v university of virginia (1995)

• extent to which university can put restrictions on students who create org

• christian org = official org

  • wide awake newspaper. report on news at university from christian perspective. university was worried about appearance of endorsing a religion

  • they deregister the war and take away funds

• court: in favor of org. university’s actions amounted to viewpoint discrimination. created limited forum (other orgs get funding but not theirs)

christian legal society v martinez (2010)

• org for law students. discussion of law through chrisitan lens

• dean = law school had policy if you are registered org, you sign nondiscrimination pledge

• this org is against gays. you cannot be in this org and gay. violating nondiscrimination clause. they sued the school. deregistered org and took away funds

• court: sided with university. nondiscrimination = content-neutral regulation. not punishing you for speech/beliefs, just not giving you benefits

business leaders in christ (2017)

• uiowa christian group in business school

• had to abide by antidiscrimination policy. gay student wanted to join but did not want to sign clause that said gay was a sin. student complained. uiowa delisted org

• BLINC sued. you have to apply this policy to all religious orgs or it is viewpoint discrimination

• university audited all orgs. delisted all the orgs that did have this clause = we will not allow you to discriminate based on sexual orientation

intervarsity christian fellowship v university of iowa (2021)

• one of delisted groups through BLINC case

• these are all religious organizations!! viewpoint discrimination!!

• court: agreed

• iowa just let it go

case that led to first amendment test

• 2 years ago. public health TA being homophobic

• students overheard and were offended. professor told him to stop

• he sues the university and professor - “you violated my free speech. i feel like i have to censor myself!”

keeton v anderson-wiley (2021)

• 11th circuit

• graduate student at augusta state university is a part of counseling program. she refuses to counsel a lesbian woman

• university says she has to counsel everyone. she sues. court sides with university. you have to learnt o service everyone!

regina v hicklin (1868)

• victorian era (crown v someone)

• trying to define what obscenity is (deprave and corrupt whose minds are open to immoral influences)

roth v us (1957)

• court moved away from hicklen test

• tried to create categorical aspect of obscenity

• test = obscenity was utterly without redeeming social value

butler v michigan (1957)

• michigan passed a law that bookstores can’t sell any pornography because children can be present

• prohibits lawful selling of porn just to protect children

stanley v georgia (1969)

• criminal case

• stanley = running illegal gambling ring. police searches his house and starts watching obscene material in his home. they watch it for 3 hours and call up judge to get another warrant

• stanley: i should have 1st amendment right to possess this if i don’t sell or produce it

• SC: agreed. can possess. do not make or distribute

miller v california (1973)

• how do you define obscenity?

• miller produced porn. created brochures/sample reels and mailed them out. restaurant owner and mother opened envelope and called police. police arrest Miller. miller sues CA

• your definition is too vague. violates my due process rights. i need to know the line

• miller test!!!

miller test

• 1. whether average person would that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (right now. work = speech at issue; book, movie; prurient interest = sick, depraved, twisted)

• 2. whether work depicts/described, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law (images and words. NO ONE would find this inoffensive)

• 3. whether work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

• must prove all prongs. did not define obscenity

american booksellers association v hudnut (1985)

• 7th circuit

• in Chicago. alliance of right-wing religious people and left-wing radical feminists trying to pass local laws to ban porn. Indianapolis = no bookstore can sell any porn that has the tendency to corrupt morals or depict women in subjective, victimized positions”

• court = this is unconstitutional. marketplace of ideas

matthews v us (2000)

• 4th circuit

• child porn is not a part of obscenity. not at all protected

• person in S.Carolina caught with child porn (he was a part of a sting operation). his argument = i am a journalist. i am investigating. i have to gain the trust of pedophiles

• court: sided with US. did not want to create pandora’s box

brown v EMA (2011)

• group of lawmakers in CA tried to punish stores who sold violent video games to minors

• voluntary standards of putting ratings on games

• Brown = governor of CA. CA passed a law banning selling of violent video games

• SC: struck law down. EMA = trade groups. We can ONLY ever apply obscenity to sex

FCC v Pacifica (1978)

• carlin monologue

• FCC = administrative law. set laws, adjudicate disputes, enforces law

• 15 year old heard profanity on radio station. pacifica is fined and could maybe not get relicensed. pacifica challenged

• SC: sides with FCC. upholds indecency standards. 1. government has interest in managing electromagnetic spectrum

• 2. kids. pervasive media

after Pacifica

• cable comes out. indecency doesn’t cover cable. YOU sign up for this. cable company can choose to bleep bad words