“Were it left for me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the later.” --Thomas Jefferson

Profanity Prior restraint Libel and slander National security School speech

War reporting Pentagon Papers National security as “compelling interest” Doctrine of “prior restraint” No battlefield reporting – Iraq example

Obscene ? Obvious problem – how do we categorize? Define it in your notes.

In a 6-to-3 decision written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press." The Court noted that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social importance." The Court held that the test to determine obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." The Court held that such a definition of obscenity gave sufficient fair warning and satisfied the demands of Due Process. Brennan later reversed his position on this issue in Miller v. California (1973).

1) appeals to abnormal sexual desire 2) depicts sex offensively 3) lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value *Prurient interests?

New York Times v. Sullivan (1963) Public figures must prove… (a) actual damages (b) malice aforethought (c) reckless disregard for the truth

FIRED for Facebook Public Figure? YouTube Celebrity?

Controversial Facebook groups

A) Describe two ways in which the freedom of expression is currently restricted in a way deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. (4 points) B) Describe the rationale for one of these restrictions and an interest group that would support this decision. Explain why that group would support it. (2 points) C) Describe the rationale for the other restriction and an interest group that would oppose this decision. Explain why that group would oppose it. ( 2 points)

Part “a” is worth four points. One point is earned by correctly identifying a restriction. The second point is for correctly describing it. The third point is earned for correctly identifying a second restriction. The fourth point is earned for correctly describing it. The two must be different. For example, libel and slander cannot count as two separate restrictions.

Restrictions include:  Speech aimed at producing an imminent lawless action – “clear and present danger” is not the modern standard.  Slander/libel. This needs to be described as something false and damaging to a person’s reputation. Public figure examples must refer to malice or “reckless disregard for the truth.”  Obscenity – offensive to a reasonable person.  School Speech—must coincide with the educational mission of the school  “Fighting Words”—speech that does not express an idea  Censorship of battlefield reporting.

Part “b” is worth two points. The rationale is worth one point. Describing an interest group that would support this decision and why is worth one point – examples may be hypothetical. Part “c” is worth two points. The rationale for the restriction is worth one point. Describing an interest group that would oppose it and explaining why is worth one point.