Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Marbury v. Madison
|
It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in the world that a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional."
Holding: it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits |
|
|
|
Trial of John Peter Zenger
|
He was a defendant in a landmark legal case in American jurisprudence that determined that truth was a defense against charges of libel.
|
|
|
|
Near v. Minnesota
|
Recognized that censorship is unconstitutional.
This case strengthened the notion that a prior restraint of the press violates the First Amendment. However, it left a loophole which would be used later for other prior restraint cases, citing certain circumstances in which prior restraint could potentially be used |
|
|
|
Abrams v. U.S.
|
Defendants' criticism of U.S. involvement in World War I was not protected by the First Amendment, because they advocated a strike in munitions production and the violent overthrow of the government.
Espionage/Sedition Acts |
|
|
|
Schenck v. U.S.
|
was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Ultimately, the case established the "clear and present danger" test.
|
|
|
|
Gitlow v. NY
|
Though the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, the defendant was properly convicted under New York's criminal anarchy law for advocating the violent overthrow of the government, through the dissemination of Communist pamphlets.
|
|
|
|
Dennis v. U.S.
|
found that Dennis did not have a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if that exercise was in furtherance of a conspiracy to overthrow the government.
|
|
|
|
Brandenburg v. Ohio
|
It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action
|
|
|
|
Tinker v. Des Moines
|
was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First Amendment rights.
|
|
|
|
Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier
|
The U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that public school officials may impose some limits on what appears in school-sponsored student publications.
|
|
|
|
Kincaid v. Gibson
|
Kincaid was a student at Kentucky State Univ., where their yearbook was taken from them for being "unsatisfactory."
This case is significant because the court made it clear that the Hazelwood case should not be applied to the college media. |
|
|
|
Morse v. Frederick
|
Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.
|
|
|
|
Bethel School Dist. v. Fraser
|
The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, permits a public school to punish a student for giving a lewd and indecent, but not obscene, speech at a school assembly
|
|
|
|
New York Times v. U.S.
U.S. v. Washington Post |
The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure. In order to exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger.
|
|
|
|
U.S. v. Progressive
|
A temporary injunction was granted against The Progressive in order to prevent the publication of an article by activist Howard Morland that purported to reveal the "secret" of the hydrogen bomb. The article was eventually published after the government dropped their case during the appeals process, calling it moot after other information was independently published, though many observers at the time thought it was because it was becoming clear their arguments were not being well received by the judges and they were afraid that the Atomic Energy Act might be ruled as unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
Neiman-Marcus v. Lait
|
* Defamation, groups can sue.
U.S.A. Confidential mentioned that the president of Neiman-Marcus department stores uses call girls and that most of the sales people are "fairies". Plaintiff, Neiman-Marcus, brings action for libel and defamation. Rule of Law and Holding: "Where the group or class libeled is large, none ca sue even though the language used is inclusive. . . Where the group of class libeled is small, and each and every member of the group or class is referred to, then any individual member can sue." |
|
|
|
New York Times v. Sullivan
|
was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel.
|
|
|
|
Walker v. AP
|
the Court ruled against Walker and found that although the statements may have been false, the Associated Press was not guilty of reckless disregard in their reporting about Walker. The Court, which had previously said that public officials could not recover damages unless they could prove actual malice, extended this to public figures as well.
|
|
|
|
Time v. Firestone
|
Mary Firestone can collect libel damages from Time, Inc., because she was not a public figure. She had no special prominence in societal affairs, nor did she thrust herself into a controversy to influence its resolution.
Supreme Court claimed she was a private person in spite of her holding press conferences, having public standing, and paying for a clipping service. |
|
|
|
Hutchinson v. Proxmire
|
The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that Proxmire's statements in his newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. However, in upholding this ruling, the Court also found that Proxmire's statements were not made with "actual malice" and thus, were not libelous.
|
* must decide if whether person voluntarily injected self into public controversy
* media coverage alone doesn't make a person a public figure |
|
|
Rosenblatt v. Baer
|
Designated that "public official" applies to those among hierarchy of government employees who have responsibility over gov affairs, and it applies to someone who left office. is not synonymous with "public employee"
|
A jury in New Hampshire Superior Court awarded respondent damages in this civil libel action based on one of petitioner's columns in the Laconia Evening Citizen. Respondent alleged that the column contained defamatory falsehoods concerning his performance as Supervisor of the Belknap Country Recreation Area
|
|
|
McDevitt v. Tilson
|
some guy was a curator for marine animals, court says he wasn't a public figure
|
|
|
|
Snead v. Redland Aggregates Ltd.
|
Snead filed suit against Redland and Standard (railroad company) for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a confidential relationship
presumed damages will not support an award of punitive damages where no actual damages have been proven |
|
|
|
Greenbelt Publishing v. Bresler
|
Held that using the word "blackmail" in a newspaper article about a public figure "was no more than rhetorical hyperbole" and that finding such usage as libel "would subvert the most fundamental meaning of a free press".
|
|
|
|
Gertz v. Welch
|
The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. (aka, there are now two types of public figure: 1. all-purpose (people who seek fame, i.e. paris hilton) 2. voluntary - puts self into controversy for a limited range of time.
* DEFAMATION |
|
|
|
Keeton v. Hustler
|
A state's courts could assert personal jurisdiction over the publisher of a defamatory article, where the publisher circulated the publication in the state where the case was brought, regardless of the plaintiff's home state.
*deals with statute of limitations |
|
|
|
Ollman v. Evans
|
This defamation action arises out of the publication of a syndicated column by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak in May 1978. The question before us is whether the allegedly defamatory statements set forth in the column are constitutionally protected expressions of opinion. (Can opinion be libel?)
|
4 Part test for actionable defamation:
1. can the statement be proven true or false? 2. what is the common or ordinary meaning of words? 3. what is the journalistic context of the remark? 4. social context |
|
|
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
|
The First Amendment does not require a separate "opinion" privilege limiting the application of state defamation laws. Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded.
"Pure opinion on an issue of public concern cannot successfully call for defamation" -- notes |
|
|
|
Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey
|
guest on Oprah's show alleged that there were thousands of US cows infected with mad cow disease...Oprah declared she was giving up hamburgers and suddenly cattle prices dropped after the show aired.
we can gather that, 1. oprah has god-like influence over people, 2. beef companies like money. * TRADE LIBEL - CRITICISM OF A PRODUCT (p.159-161) |
|
|
|
Zupnik v. AP
|
the court concludes: (1) that the plaintiff, Zupnik's wife, is a public figure, since Zupnik, a doctor, had continuous legal problems and thus gave her public attention; and (2) the plaintiff has presented no evidence tending to demonstrate actual malice.
|
|
