Last updated September 15, 2009
48C:176g: Freedom of Speech
Fall 2009, TuTh , 2:00-3:15 Lang 346
Dr. Cate Palczewski, Lang 341, x32714, email: palczewski@uni.edu
New information will appear in pink
assignment due dates are in red
links are in blue
Office Hours:
Tuesday 3:30-5:00
Wednesday 1:30-3:30
Thursday 3:30-5:00
Description: This course explores the case law and theories surrounding freedom of speech within the U.S. 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:
Readings:
Assignments: Three tracks of assignments exist. For undergraduates, tracks include:
1) law school track, focusing on recall of court cases and apellate advocacy, with the primary assignment being an oral advocacy project and
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). 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.
ASSIGNMENTS SHARED BY TRACKS 1 (law school track) AND 2 (communication theory track). 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 week 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 at least two class sessions before the assignment is due. I will not answer questions after that time.
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 day of class, and will be posted on the web syllabus.
A. Discussion foundation 1: Tetford & Herbeck readings (do one of the following two options)
Option 1. Court decision. 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)
d. Effect on case law (Does this decision overrule a precedent? Does this decision add to existing tests? Etc.)
Option 2. General information. Specific questions coming out of the chapter readings will be posed or exercises at the end of the chapters are highlighted in the syllabus. Some of these will involve external research (like discovering Iowa's FOIA standards, or if there is an Iowa shield law). No specific format would apply to all the different options. If you have questions, ask.
B. Discussion foundation 2: MacKinnon, Matsuda et al., or Butler readings (one). The format for this presentation is:
1. Main thesis
2. Sub theses
3. Interaction between readings (this may require you to talk to people who are reading the other two books you are not).
4. Questions raised
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), including a list of questions that could be used to generate discussion. Grades will be assessed based on the following:
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 a large 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.
To complete this assignment, as well as the oral argument one, 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:
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 October 15.
5. Final [10 points] 1:00-2:50, Wednesday, December 16. The final will be a takehome written exam, which you will present during the final exam period. 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.
Law School 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 appellant courts (such as the Supreme Court), although in a shorter form. Oral arguments will always 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 would be helpful. This is the book I talked about on the first day of class.
The oral argument may be regarding one of the following decisions:
1. The Florida Star v. BJF (privacy of rape victims)
2. Dworkin v. Hustler – 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. ABA v. Hudnut (pornography)
6. RAV v. St. Paul (hate speech)
7. U.S. v. Baker 890 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995) (threatening emails posted on a bulletin board)
8. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. ACLA 23 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (1998) (posting of abortion providers names and addresses on internet "most wanted" list)
9. Another free speech case you find interesting. . . must be approved by the professor.
Your grade will be assessed based on:
A. Written work [25 points]: legal citation format should be used.
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. Due September 17.
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
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.
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. Due November 19.
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 December 8.
3. Presentation outline [10 points]. December 3.
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]. December 3. 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. I would like each group member, the class period after the oral argument, to provide a 1 page summary description of the group’s work dynamics. Due December 8.
Commuication Theory Track ASSIGNMENT 3
3. Research paper. [40 points total]. The final paper should be 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 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, CIOS.org, Project Muse, Ingenta, Academic Onefile, EBSCO Host, Unistar, etc. Due September 17.
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
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 November 19, to be returned on December 1. 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.
C. Final paper [25 points]. Due December 1.
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. If you lose this syllabus, a copy is available on my website: www.uni.edu/palczews
Syllabus:
Week 1, August 25, 27: Introduction to the course
Freedom of speech in a democratic system, general rules governing free speech law, understanding the judicial system, etc.
Read: FSUS 1-2, 15, appendix 1
Abrams v. United States 250 US 616 (1919) “marketplace of ideas”
Key terms: 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, Chafee, Meiklejohn, Emerson, Haiman, Baker, Post
Key cases: Abrams v. United States
Week 2, September 1, 3: Political heresy
Read: FSUS 3
Read one of the following:
Schenck v. United States 249 US 47 (1919) “clear and present danger”
Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444 (1969) “imminent danger”
Key terms: Espionage act, political heresy (which forms receive more or less protection)
Key cases: 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
Exercises: 4, 5, 6
Week 3, September 8, 10: Commercial speech
Read: FSUS 7
Key terms: role and rules of FTC, FDA, FCC; consumer interest and social interest, current 4 part test
Key cases: 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
Exercises: 3
Discussion foundation 1:
Jess Parker: Valentine v. Chrestensen (Sept. 8)
Amy Fisher: Bigelow v. Virginia (Sept. 8)
Week 4, September 15, 17: Prior Restraint
Read: FSUS 8
Read one of the following:
Near v. Minnesota 283 US 697 (1931)
New York Times v. United States 403 US 713 (1971)
U.S. v. Progressive 467 F. Supp 990 (7th Cir. 1979)
Key terms: gatekeeping, prior restraint, Hughes on prior restraint, standards film permit systems must meet, new prior restraint tactics, duty to obey, Pentagon Papers
Key cases: Near v. Minnesota, NYT v. US, US v. Progressive, Lovell v. Griffin, Freedman v. Maryland
Exercises: 1c, 2b, 5, 6
Discussion foundation 1:
_____________________ Near v. Minnesota
_____________________ NYT v. US
Chris Outzen: US v. Progressive (Sept. 17)
September 17 Track 1 oral argument proposal due
September 17 Track 2 paper proposal due
Week 5, September 22, 24: Free Press
Read: FSUS 9
Key terms: 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
Key cases: 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), Rice v. Paladin Enterprises (4th Cir. 1997), Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, Branzburg v. Hayes, Zurcher v. Stanford Daily
Exercises: 4, 8, 9, 10
Discussion foundation 1:
_____________________ FOIA reading room review and report, Iowa FOIA rules (Sept. 22)
_____________________Does Iowa have a "shield law"? Make copies (Sept. 22)
Chelsea McBride Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (Sept 24)
Graduate Students: read MacKinnon, Only Words
Week 6, September 29, October 1: Time, place and manner
Read: FSUS 10
Read one of the following:
Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397 (1989) “expressive conduct”
Shenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York 519 US 357 (1997) “buffer zones”
Key terms: 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
Key cases: Hague v. CIO, 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
Exercises: 1a, 2, 3
Discussion foundation 1:
_____________________Texas v. Johnson (Sept 29)
Alyssa Fischer Shenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (Sept. 29)
_____________________Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (Oct. 1)
Tessa Poppens United States v. O'Brien (Oct. 1)
Graduate Students: read Words that Wound chapters 1-3
Week 7, October 6, 8: Institutional constraints
Read: FSUS 11
Read:
Tinker v. DesMoines 393 US 503 (1969)
Key terms: the present status of high school student rights, academic freedom, rights of the military, rights of criminals
Key cases: 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)
Exercises: 1b, 4
Discussion foundation 1:
Ann Hughes Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (Oct. 6)
Bradyn Weber Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (Oct. 6)
Mandi Weaver Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (Oct. 8)
Graduate Students: read Words that Wound chapters 4-6
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 8, October 13, 15: Copyright and Broadcasting
Read: FSUS 12-13
Read one of the following
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music 510 US 569 (1994) (it's really funny!)
FCC v. Pacifica 438 US 726 (1978)
Key terms: 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, 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
Key cases: 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, 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
Exercises: Copyright: 1c, 4, 5abc, 6; Broadcasting: 1c, 2a, 9b
Discussion foundation 1:
Amanda Feauto FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (Oct. 13)
Jennifer Nulty Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (Oct. 13)
Midterm October 15.
Graduate Students: read Butler, Excitable Speech introduction
Week 9, October 20, 22: The Internet
Read: FSUS 14
Read one of the following:
Reno v. ACLU 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) oral argument case
U.S. v. Baker 890 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995) oral argument case. Once you follow the link, click on "legal" library, then "federal & state cases," then type in the case name and citation number
Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. ACLA 23 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (1998) oral argument case. 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).
Key terms: 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
Key cases: 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.
Exercises: 1a. 4, 5, 6
Discussion foundation 1:
_____________________ Reno v. ACLU (Oct. 20)
Katherine Anserson Ashcroft v. ACLU (Oct. 22)
Graduate Students: read Butler, Excitable Speech chapter 1
Assignment pacing: Paper writers should have competed 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 10, October 27, 29: Privacy and defamation
Read: FSUS 4
Read one of the following:
Time v. Hill 385 US 374(1967)
Florida Star v. B.J.F. 491 US 524 (1989) oral argument case
New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)
Hustler v. Falwell 485 US 46 (1988) oral argument case
Dworkin v. Hustler 867 F.2d 1188 (1989) oral argument case. Once you follow the link, click on "legal" library, then "federal & state cases," then type in the case name and citation number
Key terms: 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,
Key cases: 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
Exercises: 2, 5
Discussion foundation 1:
_____________________ New York Times v. Sullivan (Oct. 27)
Megan Halsch Florida Star v. B.J.F. (Oct. 27)
Mitchell Konken Hustler v. Falwell (Oct. 29)
Graduate Students: read Butler, Excitable Speech chapter 2
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 11, November 3 (VOTE!), 5: Obscenity
Read: FSUS 5
Read:
Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973)
New York v. Ferber 458 US 747 (1982)
American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut 771 F.2d 323 (1985) oral argument case
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KAREN FINLEY, ET AL. 524 US 569 (1998) oral argument case
Those reading MacKinnon should have it completed.
Key terms: 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,
Key cases: 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
Exercises: 1a, 2, 3, 8
Discussion foundation 1:
Brandson Fraser Miller v. California (Nov. 3)
Mallory Wilson American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (Nov. 3)
Discussion foundation 2:
Mandi Weaver MacKinnon, chapter 1 (Nov. 5)
Chelasea McBride MacKinnon, chapter 2 (Nov. 5)
Tessa Poppens and Alyssa Fischer MacKinnon chapter 3 (Nov. 5)
Graduate Students: read Butler, Excitable Speech chapter 4
Assignment pacing: Paper writers should have drafted intro and conclusion. Advocates and Judges should complete argument 3.
***Note, a change in travel plans required me to rearrange the syllabus for weeks 12 and 13. Please note the changes.****
Week 12, November 10, 12 (no class): Fighting words
Read: FSUS 6, appendix 2
Those reading Matsuda should have chapters 1 and 6 completed.
Read one of the following:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 US 568(1942)
R.A.V. v. St. Paul 505 US 377(1992) oral argument case
Cohen v. California 403 US 15 (1971)
Key terms: 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
key cases: 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)
Exercises: 1c, 3, 4
Discussion foundation 1:
Al Hiland R.A.V. v. St. Paul (Nov. 10)
Discussion foundation 2:
Chris Outzen Matsuda, chapter 1 (Nov. 10)
Assignment pacing: All should complete the first draft of their paper/briefs. Judges should finalize question and begin outlining their decision.
Week 13, November 17, 19: Words that wound
Read: Those reading Matsuda should have that book completed.
Discussion foundation 2:
Jennifer Nulty Matsuda, chapter 6 (Nov. 17)
K. Anderson Matsuda, chapter 2 (Nov. 17)
Bradyn Weber Matsuda, chapter 3 (Nov. 19)
Megan Halsch Matsuda, chapter 4 (Nov. 19)
Mallory Wilson Matsuda, chapter 5 (Nov. 19)
November 19: Oral argument briefs due
Peer editing: research papers exchanged to take home
Assignment pacing: Oral Advocacy people should practice their complete oral argument.
Week 14, November 24, 26: Thanksgiving Break
Week 15, December 1, 3: Words that wound completed and
Read: Those reading Butler should have the book completed.
Discussion foundation 2:
Al Hiland Butler, chapter 1 (Dec. 1)
Mitchell Konken Butler, chapter 2 (Dec. 3)
Ann Hughes Butler, chapter 4 (Dec. 3)
December 1: Return peer editing
December 3: Oral argument
Final Papers Due
Week 16, December 8, 10: Conclusion
Read: FSUS 15 revisited, the ethics of speech, synthesize hate speech readings
Discussion foundation 2:
Brandon Faber Matsuda synthesis* (Dec. 8)
Amy Fisher MacKinnon synthesis* (Dec. 8)
Amanda Feauto Butler synthesis* (Dec. 10)
Jess Parker Butler, intro and synthesis (Dec. 10)
*these discussion starters will require people to consider discussions from the books they have not read, and how they intersect with the book they did read.
December 8 Judicial Decisions due
FINAL, December 16, 1:00-2:50pm, Wednesday,