Chapter 3 Slides.rev2025
Page 1: Title and Topic Introduction
Fourth Edition: Introduces the context of journalism and mass communication laws.
Focus Topic: Distinctions in Speech concerning dangers, fights, threats, and educational needs.
Page 2: Free Speech and Problem Areas
Free Speech: Defined and recognized by the Supreme Court with various standards.
Importance of factual context: considered when evaluating unprotected speech.
Page 3: Unprotected Speech and Legal Standards
Unprotected Speech Types:
Obscenity: Governed by the Miller test.
Defamation: If it meets constitutional tests related to false statements harming reputation.
Solicitation of Crime: Act of asking someone to engage in unlawful activities.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Words causing emotional harm targeted at individuals.
Harassment: Based on race, sex, or sexual orientation.
Fighting Words: Words inducing immediate violent reactions.
True Threats: Specific threats of harm against individuals.
Incitement of Unlawful Action: Promoting illegal activities.
Page 4: National Security and Speech Limitations
Threats to National Security: Recognition of limits on free speech for national security.
Hate Speech Definition: Challenges in defining 'hate speech' while avoiding 'chilling effects'.
School Speech Regulations: Focus on speech that causes substantial disruptions.
Page 5: Landmark Cases and Legislation
Antiwar Speech: Reference to cases regarding groups like the Kurdistan Workers Party labeled as terrorism (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project).
USA Patriot Act: Impacts of legislation on free speech and national security.
Page 6: Court Tests for Protecting Speech
Historical Context of Speech Regulation: 1917-1960 era of anti-communism.
Tests Established:
Clear and Present Danger Test: Used to evaluate imminent threats from speech.
Bad Tendency Test: Assessing potential harmful implications of speech.
Key Cases:
Schenck v. United States (1919): Resistance to draft during WWI.
Gitlow v. New York (1925): Advocacy for socialism.
Whitney v. California (1927): Membership in potentially violent groups.
Dennis v. U.S. (1951): Advocacy for government overthrow.
Page 7: Brandenburg Test for Incitement
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): Established criteria for punishing speech.
Incitement Test Criteria:
Directed to incite.
Immediate violence intent.
Likelihood of action.
Post-Brandenburg Standard: Mere advocacy not enough; speech must show intent and likelihood for immediate violence.
Page 8: Case Study: President Trump
Events of January 6, 2021: Examination of potential incitement by President Trump’s speech.
Case Analysis of Giuliani’s statements during protests.
Legal implications of incitement charges against Trump.
Page 9: Fighting Words Doctrine
Fighting Words: Originated from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: Speech inciting violence toward the speaker.
Terminiello v. Chicago: Free speech can provoke anger and unrest.
Current Trends: The Brandenburg test applies to evaluate 'fighting words'.
Page 10: Offensive Speech Standards
Protected Offensive Speech: Speech that is offensive is protected unless it fits other exceptions.
Cases of Note:
Cohen v. California: Protest against draft.
Texas v. Johnson: Flag burning as protest.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul: Cross burning deemed overbroad.
Snyder v. Phelps: Funeral protests protected under free speech.
Page 11: Cartoon on Free Speech
Illustrative perspective on personal interpretations of free speech related to offensiveness and censorship.
Page 12: Defining Hate Speech
Hate Speech Challenges: Difficult to define and hard to set parameters.
Most definitions include hostile speech targeting race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Judicial Perspective: Supreme Court has not acknowledged 'hate speech' as a unique category.
Page 13: CSUF Free Speech Best Practices
University Policy: Advocates for more speech over censorship when dealing with hate or discriminatory speech.
Cognitive Approach: Chemerinsky & Gillman’s stance on managing campus speech codes.
Page 14: The Argument Against Censorship
Vagueness of Censorship Laws: Concerns about how hate speech laws can be abused.
Potential Harm: Laws allowing strict censorship create issues of discrimination against certain speech.
Page 15: Legal Precedents on Hate Speech
R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992): Invalidated local hate speech ordinance for being unconstitutional.
Snyder v. Phelps (2011): Confirmed First Amendment protection of offensive speech at funerals.
Page 16: Integrating Hate Speech into Existing Law
Suggestions on how to regulate hate speech within established law frameworks (true threats, fighting words, incitements).
Page 17: Significance of Free Speech
Centrality of Debate: Encouraged viewpoint diversity and societal change through free expression.
Function: Inviting disputes as a fundamental principle of democratic society.
Page 18: Reconsideration of Hate Speech Laws
Recent Social Events: Contextual triggers for debates on hate speech legislation.
Implications of Social Media: Ease of spreading hate speech prompts reevaluation of current standards by the Supreme Court.
Page 19: True Threats Protections
Definition of True Threats: Specific threats that must be understood as serious; protected under certain conditions.
Virginia v. Black (2003): Case analyzing the implications of cross burning as a true threat.
Page 20: Recent Supreme Court Case on True Threats
Counterman v. Colorado (2023): Supreme Court ruling requiring proof of intent for threats to be categorized as true threats; speaker's awareness is crucial.
Page 21: School Speech Regulations
School District Cases: Regulations on speech causing disruption in schools (Tinker v. Des Moines, Morse v. Frederick).
Page 22: Off-Campus Speech in Schools
School Regulations Standard: High burden for schools to justify off-campus speech regulation (Mahanoy v. B.L.).
Page 23: Additional School Speech Cases
Examples: Adjustments in how schools manage offensive or inappropriate content in various contexts (e.g., Bethel School District, Hazelwood).
Page 24: College Campus Speech Regulations
Various cases highlighting the complexities of regulating speech and ensuring freedom at the college level.
Page 25: Speech Codes and Academic Freedom
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: Reports on the prevalence of infringing speech codes on university campuses.
Trends: Universities increasingly face scrutiny for maintaining or abolishing speech codes.
Page 26: Discussion Scenario
Threat Scenario: Hypothetical involving a man making threats; analyzing the implications on free speech.
Page 27: Further Discussion Problem
Offensive and Violent Lyrics: Explores implications of threatening lyrics in multiple contexts.
Page 28: Legal Statute Overview
Threat of Violence Law: Definition and implications regarding intent and perception of threat under state law.
Page 29: Legal Questions Raised
Evaluation of the Constitutionality: Considerations of how the statute might infringe on free speech rights and the societal implications of protecting harmful speech.