|
Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission
(1980) pp. 656-665 F: Commission ordered NY to cease all ads promoting the use of electricity. Appellant challenged that the Commission restrained commercial speech in violation of the 1st Amendment. I: Whether the NY Commission's order banning advertising violates the 1st Amendment. H: Yes. R: The Commission's concern over the equity and efficiency does not provide a constitutionally adequate reason for restricting protected speech. Energy conservation cannot justify suppression of information about electric devices that would cause not net increase in total energy use. Ru: 4-part test in order for the government to regulate: 1. commercial speech must concern lawful activities and not be misleading 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island
(1996) pp. 693-702 F: R.I. issued ban on advertising alcohol prices. I: Whether R.I.'s law banning the advertising of alcohol prices violates the 1st Amendment. H: Yes. R: The state's argument that advertising alcohol prices increases consumption is without proof. The restriction is more extensive than necessary. Ru: Bans against truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech are generally protected and there are usually other ways that could be implemented without regulating speech. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada
(1991) pp. 100-105 F: A defense attorney made pre-trial remarks that violated Nevada's Rule 177, a law set in place in order to prevent prejudice in a trial. I: Whether Rule 177 violates the 1st Amendment. H: Yes. R: Disciplinary rules governing the legal profession cannot punish activity protected by the 1st Amendment. Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC
(1969) pp. 476-487 F: Broadcasters didn't want to give reply time to those who were attacked on air. I: Whether the FCC rule violates the 1st Amendment. H: No. R: Airwaves are scarce and the government may regulate them moreso than normal speech. It is deemed important to be able to discuss both sides of matter of public concern on this scarce mode of communication. Ru: There is no sanctuary in the 1st Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all. |
Assc, Parties and Pol Campaigns
Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Hurley v. Irish-American GLIB Commercial Speech Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission Defamation and Torts Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. Time Inc. v. Hill NY Times v. Sullivan Hustler v. Falwell Bartnicki v. Vopper Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders Establishment Clause Alleghany v. ACLU Lemon v. Kurtzman First Amendment Theories Bickel Kairys Gitlow v. NY US v. O'Brien Miton Friedman John Stuart Mill Free Exercise Smith v. ...Oregon Sherbert v. Verner Wisco v. Yoder Illegal Advocacy NYT Company v. US (Pentagon Papers) Dennis v. U.S. Whitney v. California Abrams v. U.S. Sept 11, 1st Amend, and the Advocacy of Violence Hess v. Indiana Brandenburg v. Ohio Schenck v. US Lecture Notelets 4/4/02 2/26/02 2/11/02 Section 1/24/02 Offensive Language and Hate Speech Wisconsin v. Mitchell R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul Cohen v. California Texas v. Johnson Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Public Property and Sector Southworth Rosenberger v. University of Virginia Abood v. Detroit Education Tinker v. Des Moines School District Rock Against Racism Perry Education v. Teacher's Association Rust v. Sullivan Sexual Material Renton v. Playtime Theatres Pico Reno v. ACLU Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton Miller v. California Stanley v. Georgia Roth v. U.S. |