COMM 4217/5217:01 Freedom of Speech

Last updated January 28, 2013

Spring 2013

TuTh 3:30-4:45 Lang 345 

Privilege
Instructor: Catherine H. Palczewski, Ph.D.
 
 
 
Office: Lang Hall 341
 
Office hours:
  • Tues 1:30-3:00
  • Weds 1:30-3:00
  • Thurs 1:00-3:00
  • no office hours February 20-21, March 27-28, April 2
 
If these times do not work, feel free to call or email to make an appointment.
Office Phone: 273-2714 Mailbox: Lang Hall 326 e-mail: palczewski@uni.edu
Acknowledgements: This syllabus would not be possible without the assistance of faculty at UNI and other universities who have shared their ideas, assignments and syllabi, and I thank them for their help, particularly: Richard Ice, Dale Herbeck, and Chuck Kauffman. This syllabus is better because of their help. I also owe much to the person who taught me about freedom of speech: Franklyn S. Haiman.
New information will appear in pink
assignment due dates are in red
links are in purple and blue

Description: This course explores the case law and theories surrounding freedom of speech within the United States. The course approaches the issue from a legal argument perspective, developing an understanding of how the judicial appellate system operates, and how courts develop decisions which are able to carry the power of persuasion within them. Ultimately, we will examine whether free speech law has kept up with developing communication theory and technology, and whether the present approach to free speech jurisprudence guarantees freedom of speech for all.

Goals:

  • Achieve an understanding of both the history of, and contemporary case law regarding, freedom of speech.
  • Analyze one issue, freedom of expression and intellectual property, in detail to develop an understanding of the legal, communication, and critical theories that inform our ethics regarding and understanding of free expression in a digital age.

Readings:

  • Textbook: Tedford, Thomas L. and Dale Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States, 6th ed. State College, PA: Strata, 2009. (FSUS)
  • McLeod. Kembrew. Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property. Minnespolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. (FoE)
  • Popular press: readings about current events will be linked to the syllabus.
General Information: see my website, at www.uni.edu/palczews/general.htm. This site includes my late policy, the university accommodation policy, as well as paper format descriptions.

Assignments:

Three tracks of assignments exist. For undergraduates, tracks include:

1) oral argument track, focusing on recall of court cases and apellate advocacy, with the primary assignment being an oral advocacy project

2) communication theory track, focusing on the interaction between communication theory and free speech law, with the primary assignment being a research paper.

The third track is for graduate students. Graduate students develop their own assignment track, tailored to their graduate school objectives. By the end of the second week of class, graduate students should have turned in an assignment proposal that includes,

1) name of assignment,

2) description,

3) due date,

4) point worth (model it after the assignment descriptions in the syllabus)

5) criteria for grading

The assignment proposal should be as detailed as this syllabus.

Graduate students also will meet an additional hour each week for a graduate level seminar discussion, at a time to be determined by your schedules. Additional readings may be required for these meetings. As part of their assignment track, graduate students may choose to do some of the assignments in tracks 1 and 2. Additional readings will be listed in teal at the end of the week during which we meet.

Assignment Due Date Point worth
1. Discussion Foundations sign up 10 + 10
2. Discusssion every class period 20

3. Oral argument

 

paper

February 5 (proposal), April 18 (briefs), April 23/25 (oral argument), April 30 (judicial decision), May 2 (group assessment). Note: you do either the brief (if a lawyer) or a decision (if a judge). That is why I adjusted points.

February 5 (proposal), April 18 (draft for peer edit), April 23 (return peer edit), April 30 (final paper)

5/15/15/15/5

 

7.5/7.5/25

4. Midterm March 14 10
5a. Final (written) May 7 (Tuesday) 3:00-4:50 8
4b. Final (oral) May 7 (Tuesday) 3:00-4:50 2

UNDERGRADUATE ASSIGNMENTS SHARED BY TRACKS 1 (oral argument) AND 2 (communication theory). Detailed descriptions of all assignments appear on this syllabus. You are free to ask questions in class about the assignments, or contact me outside of class by email or phone. But, please be aware, I will NOT answer any questions about an assignment in the 48 hours before it is due. I recognize that students procrastinate, so, consider this an inducement to begin work early. This means if you have a question, you need to be prepared to ask it in the class session before your paper is due. I will not answer questions after that time. Assignments are due at the beginning of class on the date listed.

1. Discussion foundation: [2 at 10 points each] You will provide a foundation for class discussion two times during the semester. Sign up will occur during the first week of class, and will be posted on the web syllabus. You presentation will focus on presenting a summary of one of the key cases covered in the chapter. To do a good job on this presentation, you will have to read the entire court decision. I most cases, I have provided hyperlinks on the syllabus.

The format for this presentation is:

a. Facts of the case

b. Judicial history

c. Findings of the court (include a description of the vote, the rationale for the decision, and a description of dissenting opinions). Provide key quotations.

d. Effect on case law (Does this decision overrule a precedent? Does this decision add to existing tests? Etc.)

e. A list of questions that could be used to generate discussion. 

Each presentation should last 10 minutes. This time limit will be strictly enforced, just as time limits are enforced in appellate litigation. Students should turn in a typed outline of their presentations BEFORE they present (so that I can write detailed feedback). Grades will be assessed based on the following:

  • Word economy – how well you present complex ideas and facts in as concise a manner as possible
  • Accuracy – how accurately you present the issues discussed in the readings
  • Understandability – how easy you make it to take notes and recognize the keys points of the readings.

The goal of the presentation is not to spew out as many facts as possible, but to develop your ability to eloquently present difficult information to an audience in such a way that it leaves room for discussion. Notes are allowed, but remember that the goal of this assignment is to develop your oral presentation skills. Reading a manuscript does not tend to enhance comprehension or the audience’s ability to digest information. Each presentation is also a mini-study session for the class tests.

To complete this assignment, you are expected to conduct additional research. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with Lexis/Nexis, particularly the law review library as well as the judicial decision library.  Other helpful cites include:

www.aclu.org

oyez (contains audio of the oral arguments)

the textbook website

2. Discussion [20 points]. Discussion participation is an integral part of this course, and assumes that you will have completed the readings prior to class. In the case of those who are on track 1, you should expect to be asked to provide concise case summaries. For those on track 2, you should expect to be asked to identify broad, synthetic trends in freedom of speech law.

In order to be a full participant in discussion, you MUST have completed the assigned reading. I will open every class asking if there are questions, but beyond that, I will not review the readings. Instead, I will assume you have completed the reading, taken notes, and are ready to apply and analyze the readings.

AnaLouise Keating (Teaching Transformation, 2007, p. 196) provides the following description of good academic practices in regards to reading for class:

(1) I expect you to complete all readings by the date listed on the syllabus;

(2) I expect you to read the material thoughtfully and in an engaged manner;

(3) I expect you to read all endnotes and footnotes;

(4) I expect you to read (not skim) all of the required readings--even those you find "boring" or difficult;

(5) I expect you to reread those texts that you have previously read;

(6) I expect you to seek out definitions for words and terminology you don't know . . . try the following websites:

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

http:///www.theory.org.uk/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/culture/glossary.htm

...

http://www.popcultures.com/

http://www.cios.org/ [added by Cate]

James Jasinki, Sourcebook on Rhetoric (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001).

For those who are uncertain about their ability to participate consistently, I suggest you do the following. For each week, I would like you to prepare a discussion log, no more than 1 single space typed page for each half, due the next class period. The log should have 2 halves:

A. Pre-class: a description of how you prepared to contribute to discussion (key concepts outlined, examples developed, questions formulated.);

B. Post-class: A self-assessment of your contribution to class using the five elements outlined in the discussion link. You should attach a grade to your participation for the class period in question.

You should then set up regular meetings with me, during which we can discuss what you have discovered by logging your discussion. We may then develop ways to improve your discussion participation and adjust grading expectations accordingly.

For more details on discussion, as well as grading criteria, see this link.

3. see below -- specific to each track.

4. Midterm: [10 points]. This track will focus more on recall of case facts, names and findings. See green text for cases and concepts on which you should focus most of your attention (although it will still be worth your while to study all the terms and cases). Due March 14.

5. Final [10 points] 3:00-4:50, May 7. The final will be a takehome written exam, which you will present during the final exam period. More details on the content to come later. Each student should prepare a 5 minute presentation based on their final. The presentation component will count for 2 of the 10 points assigned to the final.

Oral Argument Track ASSIGNMENT 3

3. Oral Argument: [40 points total] You and five colleagues will conduct an oral argument in appellate format in front of the class. This format will be used in those cases where a strong dissent was present, therefore, the possibility to revisit argument exists even though the case has been decided. The roles between the five should be split as follows: appellant, appellee, and a panel of three judges. Your group should work together researching the decision, as well as briefs in support of it and law reviews concerning it. The format of your arguments will follow that used by the appellate courts (such as the Supreme Court), although in a shorter form.  Oral arguments will occur on the days scheduled, toward the end of the semester. For those using this track, getting a copy of Introduction to Advocacy: Research, Writing, and Argument is essential.

The oral argument may be regarding one of the following decisions:

1. Florida Star v. B.J.F. (privacy of rape victims)

2. Dworkin v. Hustler 867 F.2d 1188 (1989). Once you follow the link, click on "legal" library, then "federal & state cases," then type in the case name and citation number – or – Hustler v. Falwell  (defamation and libel)

3. Reno v. ACLU (internet regulation)

4. U.S. v. Eichman (flag burning) – or – NEA v. Finley (NEA funding)

5. American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (pornography)

6. R.A.V. v. St. Paul (hate speech)

7. U.S. v. Baker 890 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995). Once you follow the link, click on "legal" library, then "federal & state cases," then type in the case name and citation number (threatening emails posted on a bulletin board)

8. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. ACLA 23 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (1998). Once you follow the link, click on "legal" library, then "federal & state cases," then type in the case citation number (the name is too long). (posting of abortion providers names and addresses on internet "most wanted" list)

9. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (political speech)

10. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KAREN FINLEY, ET AL. 524 US 569 (1998)

11. Another free speech case you find interesting. . . must be approved by the professor.

You can find the legal briefs submittes for any case after 1999 at FindLaw.com. For briefs from earlier cases, review the Supreme Court's suggestions on "Where to Find Briefs"

Your grade will be assessed based on:

A.  Written work [25 points]:

1. Oral argument proposal [5 points]. This is simply a one page document indicating which case will be argued and who will play which role. A bibliography should be attached listing all the sources to be used in developing cases and writing opinions. The bibliographic component will take time to complete. Due February 5.

The whole bibliography does NOT need to be typed. Instead, what I want is: A typed cover sheet that does the following

1) Identify the bibliographic format used (APA or MLA). The cover page/s also should include a practice bibliography that YOU type that includes sample citations. I want to make sure everyone knows how to do citations forms for typical sources. Thus, you need to include bibliographic entries for at least one of each of the following (even if you are not citing it yet):

a. book

b. book chapter from an edited collection

c. newspaper article (if electronically accessed, correct form for that should be included)

d. magazine article (if electronically accessed, correct form for that should be included)

e. scholarly journal article/law review article (if electronically accessed, correct form for that should be included)

f. web source

g. court decision

2) list the names of research data-bases consulted (LexisNexis legal is essential),

3) list key words/key terms used in searches (this should include multiple key terms, and some topics will require searches on multiple topics)

After the cover sheet, provide a printout of the results of your searches (NOT the actual articles and cases, just the search results). I will be able to point you in the direction of which articles might be most helpful.

2. Brief/decision [10 points]:

a. if you are a litigant -- a 5 page legal brief you submit to the class one week prior to your oral argument. The class is expected to read this along side the court decision. April 18.

b. if you are a judge – a 5 page decision, based on the legal briefs, the law, and the oral arguments, due one week after the oral arguments are presented. Due April 30.

3. Presentation outline [10 points]. April 23.

a. if you are a litigant, the outline for your presentation, including a bibliography

b. if you are a judge, the outline of possible questions and details of relevant case law from which you would draw questions, including a bibliography

B. Oral argument [10 points].  April 23 or 25. Judges play a central role in oral argument, interrupting and clarifying case law. Therefore, although all members of a group should work together, they also ought to strive to maintain the extemporaneous nature of oral argument. In order to guarantee this, questions might also be posed by the class or by me. Although judges will not talk as long as the lawyers, their contribution is just as vital. Questions must be precise, at the appropriate moment, challenging, and grounded in case law. Your grade will not be determined by who wins or loses the oral argument. Instead, this part of the grade is determined by the degree to which the oral arguments represent the complexity of the case and clarify the case law regarding it. The format for the oral argument is as follows:  Appellant: 20 minute presentation.  Appellee: 20 minute presentation.  The twenty minutes include that time during which the judges ask questions.

If you plan on doing this track, I strongly recommend that you listen to an example of oral argument. Perhaps the best example from a recent case is Neal Katyal's oral argument in Hamdan. This is not a freedom of speech case, but the point in listening is to get a sense of how to do oral argument, both the presentation and the questioning. Katyal's oral argument: audio link and transcript link.

C. Group work [5 points]. The overall quality of the presentation will be assessed. This part of the grade will not be identical for all members of the group insofar as it reflects each individual's overall contribution to group dynamics. Each group member shall provide a 1 page summary description of the group’s work dynamics. Due May 2.

Commuication Theory Track ASSIGNMENT 3

3. Research paper. [40 points total]. The final paper should be 15-20 pages long (excluding the bibliography) and use APA or MLA. It should explore some controversy in freedom of speech to which communication research can add insight.

A. Paper proposal and bibliography [7.5 points] This short paper (3-5 pages) should provide a summary of the issues to be explored in the longer paper, as well as an extensive bibliography. The bibliography should include all possible citations concerning the subject, and hence will require the use of a variety of bibliographic sources: Lexis/Nexis, Comm & Mass Media Complete, Project Muse, Ingenta, Academic Onefile, EBSCO Host, Unistar, etc. Due February 5.

The whole bibliography does NOT need to be typed. Instead, what I want is: A typed cover sheet that does the following

1) Identify the bibliographic format used (APA or MLA). The cover page/s also should include a practice bibliography that YOU type that includes sample citations. I want to make sure everyone knows how to do citations forms for typical sources. Thus, you need to include bibliographic entries for at least one of each of the following (even if you are not citing it yet):

a. book

b. book chapter from an edited collection

c. newspaper article (if electronically accessed, correct form for that should be included)

d. magazine article (if electronically accessed, correct form for that should be included)

e. scholarly journal article/law review article (if electronically accessed, correct form for that should be included)

f. web source

g. court decision

2) list the names of research data-bases consulted (this should be all the databases listed in the syllabus),

3) list key words/key terms used in searches (this should include multiple key terms, and some topics will require searches on multiple topics)

After the cover sheet, provide a printout of the results of your searches (NOT the actual articles and cases, just the search results). I will be able to point you in the direction of which articles might be most helpful.

B. Peer editing [7.5 points]. A near final draft of the paper should be completed by April 18, to be returned on April 23. Bring 3 copies to class. Papers will be exchanged with other class members who will have one week to complete a detailed edit of the paper. If you fail to bring a near final draft, you will lose the right to earn points by peer editing others.

New information:

1. Substantive edits: You are expected to provide a minimum of three (3) substantive suggestions. In order to make a good substantive suggestion, it usually requires at least a paragraph of writing. Given the length of these edits, you may want to type them. These suggestions can include:

  • Additional arguments to be made. You can point to additional evidence that supports their argument, or that modifies their argument in some way.
  • Additional citation on the history of the topic. You can provide the citation for a relevant essay or book, and explain the contribution it makes.
  • Additional variables or concepts that develop the thesis/research questions. You can provide a quotation and page number from the class texts, and explain what is revealed by using the concepts from the texts.
  • Additional scholarly citations. You can provide citations for articles from scholarly journals and books. You should summarize the concept from the scholar, and then explain it.
  • Major organizational changes. You can suggest a major reordering of the paper. This is more than moving the order of two paragraphs. Instead, it would constitute an alternative way to develop the argument.
  • Major differences in interpretation. You may disagree with some interpretive move the author makes. If so, make a case for an alternative interpretation, providing evidence.

2. Stylistic edits: You are expected to make a minimum of ten (10) style edits. They can include:

  • bibliographic citation corrections
  • internal citation corrections
  • typographical error corrections
  • grammar corrections
  • spelling corrections
  • sentence rewordings

C. Final paper [25 points]. Due April 30.

Syllabus:
Week readings key concepts key cases discussion questions assignments

Week 1: January 15, 17

Introduction to the course: Freedom of speech in a democratic system, general rules governing free speech law, understanding the judicial system, etc. 

Jan 15: FSUS 1, appendix 1

Jan 17: FSUS 2

Abrams v. United States 250 US 616 (1919) “marketplace of ideas”

seditious libel, private libel, blasphemous libel, obscene libel, Blackstone’s conception of freedom of speech, key moments of conflict over civil liberties, bad tendency rule, Alien and Sedition acts Abrams v. United States       

Week 2: January 22, 24

Broadcasting

Speech as money: The metaphor of the marketplace becomes literal

Jan 22: FSUS 13

Jan 24: Citizens United

Toobin link

Potter link

SCOTUS blog explanation

Citizen's United

Supreme Court Link

2 key principles concerning airwaves, FCC fairness rule, equal opportunity law, hoaxes, indecent v. obscene, current indecency rule, cable v. broadcast TV, must carry rules, intermediate v. strict scrutiny, access theory CBS v. FCC, Wilkinson v. Jones, Denver Area Telecommunications Consortium v. FCC, National Broadcasting v. United States (1943), Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), CBS v. FCC (1981), Turner Broadcasting v. FCC 1c, 2a, 9b  

Week 3: January 29, 31

Political heresy

FSUS 3

Whitehead, John W. (2012, March 6). Criminalizing free speech: Is this what democracy looks like? HuffPost.

 

Espionage act, political heresy (which forms receive more or less protection) Schenck v. United States, Gitlow v. New York, Whitney v. California, Fiske v. Kansas, DeJonge v. Oregon, Dennis v. United States, Yates v. United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio

4, 5, 6

What is the present state of political speech? Is it protected?

Discussion foundation:

Hilary: Schenck v. United States 249 US 47 (1919) “clear and present danger”

_____________________Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444 (1969) “imminent danger”

Week 4: February 5, 7

Privacy and defamation

Feb 5: FSUS 4

Feb 7:

Hill, Kashmir. (2010, October 4). Will the Duke f**klist lead to lawsuits? Above the Law.

Weiss, Debra Cassens. (2011, June 7). Free speech, privacy rights clash in dispute over billboard claiming woman had an abortion. ABAJournal.com.

CMLP staff. (2007, September 10). Steinbuch v. Cutler summary. Citizen Media Law Project.

Gregory, Sean. (2011, march 3). Why the Supreme Court ruled for Westboro. Time U.S.

Bennett-Smith, Meredith. (2013, January 25). Hillie Toups leads women in revenge pron class action lawsuit against Texxxan.com, Go.Daddy. The Huffington Post.

libel per se, libel per quod, civil v. criminal remedies, slander v. libel, basic conditions of a defamation case, defenses in defamation suits, damages, group libel, public v. private person, burden of proof, SLAPP and SLAPPbacks, types of invasion of privacy, defenses in privacy action Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967), Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971), Gertz v. Welch (1974), Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986), Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (1990), Masson v. New Yorker Magazine (1991), Time v. Hill (1967), Dietemann v. Time (9th Cir. 1971), Gallela v. Onassis (2nd Cir. 1973), Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (1975), Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (1977), Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989), Hustler v. Falwell

2, 5

Should you be able to publish private information about others in the process of telling your own story?

Discussion foundation:

_____________________ New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)

_____________________Florida Star v. B.J.F. 491 US 524 (1989) oral argument case

_____________________Time v. Hill (1967)

 

Feb 5 Track 1 oral argument proposal due

Feb 5 Track 2 paper proposal due   

 

Week 5: February 12, 14:

Balsphemy and Obscenity

FSUS 5

Stone, Geoffrey R. (2012, September 14). Terry Jones and the first amendment. HuffingtonPost.

 

 

6 types of relgio-moral heresy, the outcome of the 1973 decisions/Miller/Miller progeny (what are the general standards applying to obscenity presently in operation), RICO Burstyn v. Wilson, Epperson v. Arkansas, Kingsley International Pictures v. Regents, Roth v. United States (1957), Ginzburg v. United States (1966), Stanley v. Georgia (1969), Miller v. California (1973), Paris Adult Theatre I. v. Slaton (1973), New York v. Ferber (1982), American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (1985), Alexander v. United States (1993), NEA v. Finley

1a, 2, 3, 8

Should the Innocence of Muslims have been banned?

Discussion foundation:

Evan: Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973)

Chase: American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut 771 F.2d 323 (1985) oral argument case

Assignment pacing: Paper writers should have completed the section arging their policy proposal is constitutional OR the section arguing the Supreme Court decision is wrong. Advocates should draft argument 2. Judges should develop questions regarding argument 2.

Week 6: February 19, 21 (Wisconsin)

Fighting words

FSUS 6, appendix 2

Solove, Daniel J. Off-campus cyberbullying and the First Amendment. (2011, July 28). HuffPost Education.

Hudson Jr., David L. (2013, January 4). 2nd Circuit reinstates lawsuit in middle-finger arrest. First Amendment Center.

fighting words, summary of Court’s thinking on provocation to anger, Matsuda’s narrow definition of words that wound, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Cohen v. California, Gooding v. Wilson Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Feiner v. New York (1951), Cohen v. California (1971), Gooding v. Wilson (1971), R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

1c, 3, 4

Are there any "words" so dangerous they deserve no first amendment protection?

Discussion foundation:

_____________________R.A.V. v. St. Paul 505 US 377(1992) oral argument case

Mandy: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 US 568(1942)

Hilary: Cohen v. California 403 US 15 (1971)

 

 

Week 7: February 26, 28

Commercial speech

FSUS 7

 

role and rules of FTC, FDA, FCC; consumer interest and social interest, current 4 part test Valentine v. Chrestensen, Bigelow v. Virginia, Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976), Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980), Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986), Board of Trustees SUNY v. Foxx 3

Discussion foundation:

Sophia: Valentine v. Chrestensen

Brittany: Bigelow v. Virginia

Assignment pacing: Paper writers should have drafted intro and conclusion. Advocates and Judges should complete argument 3.

 

Week 8: March 5, 7

Prior Restraint

FSUS 8

Kluwe, Chris. (2012, September 7). An open letter to Emmett Burns. HuffPost.

Bingham, Amy. (2012, September 10). lawmaker admits fumble, NFL players do have free speech. ABC News.

The Jefferson Muzzles Awards

 

 

gatekeeping, prior restraint, Hughes on prior restraint, standards film permit systems must meet, new prior restraint tactics, duty to obey, Pentagon Papers Near v. Minnesota, NYT v. US, US v. Progressive, Lovell v. Griffin, Freedman v. Maryland 1c, 2b, 5, 6

Discussion foundation:

Mercedes: Near v. Minnesota 283 US 697 (1931)

Zoe: New York Times v. United States 403 US 713 (1971)

Mandy: U.S. v. Progressive 467 F. Supp 990 (7th Cir. 1979)

 

Week 9:

March 12 Free Press

March 14: midterm

 

March 12: FSUS 9

O'Donnell, Noreen. (2012, December 29). Journal News to list more gun permit holders after uproar. HuffPost Media.

Goldstein, Tom. (2010, June 24). Today's decision in Doe v. Reed. SCOTUSblog.

free press v. fair trial balance/constrain media or constrain participants, three part test of press confidentiality privilege, reporters privileges given legislation, FOIA, FOIA exemptions Irvin v. Dowd (1961), Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), Gannett Company v. DePasquale (1979), Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980), Chandler v. Florida (1981), Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (I) (1984), Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (II) (1986), Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, Branzburg v. Hayes, Zurcher v. Stanford Daily

4, 8, 9, 10

Should there be restrictions on the press's right to publish public information?

Discussion foundation:

Shawn: FOIA reading room review and report, Iowa FOIA rules

Evan: Zurcher v. Stanford Daily

 

March 14: midtem

Week 10: March 19, 21 Spring Break

 

 

 

 

 

       

Week 11: March 26, 28 (NDT)

Time, place and manner

 

March 26:FSUS 10

FoE 5

Ackerman, Bruce, & Benkler, Yochai. (2011, October 21). Occupying the first amendment. HuffPost.

March 28: UNI Maucker Union policy: link 1 link 2

basic philosophy of time/place/manner restrictions, open forum on public property, compatible use rule, three part forum rule, open forum on private property (esp. shopping centers), speech plus Jamison v. Texas, Shenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, Texas v. Johnson, US v. Eichman et al., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Grayned v. Rockford (1972), Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association, United States v. O'Brien

1a, 2, 3

 

March 28: Is UNI's Maucker Union policy an example of legitimate T/P/M restrictions?

Discussion foundation:

Josiah: Texas v. Johnson  491 US 397 (1989) “expressive conduct”

Zoe: Shenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York 519 US 357 (1997) “buffer zones”

Rachael: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

_____________________United States v. O'Brien

Assignment pacing: Paper writers should have their central court cases read and 3-5page summaries of those cases drafted. Oral argument folks should have the following read: court of appeals case and Supreme Court legal briefs. Advocates should identify and outline their 3-5 central arguments. Judges shoud have summaries of all relevent precedents drafted.

 

 

Week 12: April 2 (NDT), 4

Institutional constraints

April 2: FSUS 11

FoE 4

April 4: Lukianoff, Greg. (2012, October 24). Feigning free speech on campus [Opinion]. The New York Times

Solove, Daniel J. (2011, June 20). School discipline fot off-campus speech and the first amendment. HuffPost Education.

FIRE's assessment of UNI.

Supplemental:

Silvergate, Harvey A., French, David, & Lukianoff, Greg.. (2012). FIRE's Guide to free speech on campus (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: FIRE.

 
the present status of high school student rights, academic freedom, rights of the military, rights of criminals Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982), Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), Doe v. Michigan (1989), Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995), Parker v. Levy (1974), Goldman v. DOD, Procunier v. Martinez (1974), Pell v. Procunier (1974) 1b, 4

Discussion foundation:

Brittany: Tinker v. DesMoines 393 US 503 (1969)

Shawn: Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico

Chase: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

Assignment pacing: Paper writers should have completed researching and reading on their topic, including all peritent legal briefs and policy proposals. Part I of the paper should be drafted. Advocates should have the draft of their first argument completed. Judges should have developed questions regarding argument 1.

Week 13: April 9, 11

Copyright

April 9: FSUS 12

April 11: FoE 1-3

NEW: for an example of a cease and desist order in action, see: Hall, Ellie. (2013, April 9). "Firefly" hat triggers corporate crackdown. BuzzFeed

what cannot be copyrighted, 4 principles of fair use, works for hire, the constitutional paradox, how copyright accomodates free expression rights, areas of tension between copyright and free expression Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios, Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, Salinger v. Random House, Basic Books, Inc., v. Kinko's Graphic Corp., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Copyright: 1c, 4, 5abc, 6

Discussion foundation :

Sophia: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music 510 US 569 (1994) (it's really funny!)

Josiah: FCC v. Pacifica 438 US 726 (1978)

Part II of papers should be drafted. Drafts of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, oral arguments should be drafted. Judges should develop additional questions.

Week 14: April 16, 18

The Internet

April 16: FSUS 14

April 18: FoE 6

Karr, Timothy. (2012, July 16). Freedom = censorship. HuffPost Tech.

 

 

 

how Internet differs from print and broadcasting, vagueness, overbreadth, which parts of the CDA are still in effect and which are unconstitutional, state of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Internet, who is responsible for Internet defamation, publisher v. distributor, anonymous communication, ECPA protections, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement Reno v. ACLU, Ashcroft v. ACLU, US v. American Library Association, UMG Recordings v. MPS.com, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., MGM Studios, Inc., v. Grokster, Inc. 1a, 4, 5, 6

Discussion foundation:

Rachael: Reno v. ACLU 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) oral argument case

Mercedes: Ashcroft v. ACLU

Assignment pacing: All should complete the first draft of their paper/briefs. Judges should finalize question and begin outlining their decision.

April 18: Oral argument briefs due

April 18: Peer editing: research papers exchanged to take home

Week 15: April 23, 25

Oral argument

case selected and briefs prepared      

 

April 23: Return peer editing

 

Week 16: April 30, May 2

Conclusion

 

FSUS 15

FoE Afterward

Ammori, Marvin. (2011, March 28). Digital spaces and the future of free speech. HuffPost Tech.

     

April 30:

Final Papers Due

Judicial Decisions due

May 2: group assessment due

Week 17: May 7 (Tuesday) 3:00-4:50 Final exam         Final exam