Conlaw2

Constitutional Law II – Freedom of Speech – Prof. Stone – Winter 2007
ISSUE-SPOTTING CHECKLIST
Always ask:
- Is this over/underprotective? Overbroad/vague?
- Is this appropriate in wartime; can we trust ourselves? Precommitment.
- Balancing test (or any other standard that invites ambiguity) is it likely to be used in a non-neutral way?
- Why are we bothered by certain types of speech?
- Are we impermissibly narrowing an acceptable regulation on the basis of content? Not allowed. RAV.
- Is this a viewpoint based regulation? If so, it’s per se unconst’l.
Is the regulation appropriately narrow/broad?
- Overbroad: regulates substantially more speech than the const’n allows to be regulated; may be unconst’l as applied to some people the statute would authorize. o Statutes must be narrowly drawn to abridge only protected expression.
- Vagueness: if a reasonable person can’t tell what speech is prohibited and what’s permitted. o Unequal interpretation
- Prior restraint: orders forbidding certain communication, issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur. o Bad b/c of collateral bar rule. P. 10.
Does the regulation focus on the content of the speech (the communicative impact)?
- ... because the speech advocates dangerous ideas/incites unlawful conduct? o Brandenburg test, p. 5; punishable b/c of tendency to cause others to engage in unlawful acts (and LVS) only if the speech expressly incites unlawful conduct and only if the danger is likely/imminent. Narrow, very protective.
- ... because the speech may threaten? o Warnings protected, threats are not (difference: intent) o Test: express and unlawful threats may be regulated/banned.
- ... because of an effect it may have on the audience? o Audience reaction: in the absence of extraordinary state necessrity, govn’t can’t prohibit speech b/c it’s potentially harmful unless
 CPD is generally req’d (unfavorable approach from listeners doesn’t justify regulation)
 No regulation under the guise of protecting speaker/preserving pub speech
 No protective suppression (Feiner: wrong) o FWs (LVS)
 Test: language used in face-to-face interaction tending to incite violence may be regulated (under narrowly drawn public nuisance statute.
 Regulable b/c benefit is clearly outweighed by interest in social order/morality; also triggers harm.
- ... because the information it discloses is private? o Govn’t must meet a heavy burden to justify prior restraint (Sullivan)
 Licensing is acceptable with prior consensual K o Pvt citizens: tort for invasion of privacy (must be “nonnewsworthy”)
 Publicly available private information not protected (Cox)
- ... because it includes a false statement of fact (libel) (LVS) o Public off’ls/public figures/ltd public figures/pvt figures (and damages differences)
- ... because it constitutes comm’l advertising? (LVS) o Not as protected as other speech; but govn’t can’t regulate to protect people from content. Carey. o No greater-includes-the-lesser argument for regulation of advertising (for activities that the state could ban/prohibit)
- ... because it’s sexual in nature (obscenity; LVS) o Definition: from Miller; (a) whether avg person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work (as a whole) appeals to prurient interest; (b) whether work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined by the applicable state law; (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Must name the acts. o Analogy doesn’t extend to violence.
- ... because it’s otherwise offensive? p. 14. o Generally not LVS if used in public, no captive audience. Cohen, Erznoznik. o Captive audience justifies narrow (channeling) regulation Pacifica. o If aff step req’d to receive a message, it can’t be regulated. Sable, Reno v. ACLU.
- ... as hate speech?
Page 1 of 31

o o o o Generally lost out in the mktplace of ideas (16)
No COA for group libel (Doe v. U of M, 17)
Hate speech as true threat may work.
No narrowing of FW doctrine to apply to hate speech. RAV.

Is the regulation a zoning ordinance?
- Generally ok even if it discriminates on content as long as it’s undertaken for content-neutral secondary effects.
Is the regulation taking place in a public forum?
- Govn’t can disallow speech, but when it chooses to allow some speech, it’s not acceptable if based on viewpoint.
Does the regulation apply w/o regard to the communicative impact; is it subject matter and viewpoint neutral? If so, it’s a content-neutral regulation:
Ten factors to consider: see p. 18
Is the speech occurring on publicly-owned prop’ty or govn’t money (subsidies/tax)? (19)
- What type of forum? o SPS?
 Reasonable regulations allowed (have to pass SS)? o Designated public forum?
 Treated the same as SPS. o Nonpublic forum (other govn’t owned prop’ty)
 i.e. state fair, airport, military base, mailboxes, etc.
 Three approaches (p. 20)
- Govn’t money (21) o Govn’t can make decisions of fed’l spending (and tax subsidy) based on permissible, reasonable distinctions btwn groups. Reagan. o Govn’t may condition acceptance of fed’l funds by a project on that project’s agreement to promote certain positions. Rust, Velasquez (22) o Can’t tax the press. Minn Star & Tribune (27)
Is there regulation based on conduct undertaken for communication (or conduct that can be said to communicate)?
- Acts prohibited b/c of communicative impact are evaluated as if the govn’t was prohibiting speech b/c of its message.
- Laws with incidental effects on speech are (highly) presumptively const’l. O’Brien (22-23) o Incl. flag burning, draft card burning, nude dancing. o Circumstances in which incidental effects can invalidate a statute (significant enough impact); NAACP, Dale.
- Litigation: can’t restrict litigation if undertaken for 1st A purpose (i.e. NAACP or ACLU), (25) o Solicitation (25)
- Association o Nondiscriminatory policy doesn’t violate ass’l rights if it’s not an expressive organization. Jaycees, Dale.
Regulation on political spending/contribution?
- Congress can regulate elections, but can’t interfere w/1st A. Buckley (23).
- Can limit corp’ns expenditures from treasuries, but can’t limit corp’te contributions based on content. Austin, Belotti (24).
- Ct can regulate political activities of public employees, Pickering (24).
Regulation on the Press?
- No special status Belotti (26)
- No testimonial privilege (but states have them), Branzburg.
- Access to criminal trials (for press and public) (27)
- State can’t tax the press.
- Broadcasting: when it was a limited spectrum, fairness doctrine (Red Lion) was ok; now it’s not as strong a concern (but was upheld in Turner). (27-28).

Page 2 of 31

FULL OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION
I.

II.

III.

Text: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” (FOS)
a. Literal interpretation gives us nothing; “freedom of speech” isn’t self-defining, and nobody has ever taken
“Congress” literally (treated to mean “the Fed’l Govn’t shall make no law”)
i. Literal interpretation is impossible b/c results wouldn’t be sensible. Can’t possibly mean the freedom to say whatever one wants, whenever, wherever.
b. History
i. We know what the Framers knew/believed about FOS on certain issues; common understandings of FOS at the time of framing are presumptively included in the conception unless there’s reason to believe the framers intended to adopt a different approach.
1. Licensing: FOS presumptively prohibits the use of licensing; Framers didn’t like it. In the
16th/17th centuries in England, licensing scheme made it unlawful for anyone to publish any material w/o first obtaining a license from a censor.
2. Blasphemy and defamation: FOS presumably doesn’t include freedom to engage in these things.
When 1st A was enacted, almost all states had restrictions on blasphemy and defamation; there’s no serious argument that these laws violated the const’n.
3. Seditious libel: conflicting. Was used at the time, but it was controversial. In its most extreme form, it makes it a crime for any person to make any statement that would bring the govn’t, its policies/laws/officials into disrepute. SL was punishable like defamation under the theory that the govn’t had to have a good reputation (whether it deserved it or not) to operate effectively (b/c people had to respect it).
a. Can’t assume anything about it b/c 10 years after the 1st A was adopted, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it a crime to engage in SL. ii. Standard for determining meaning from history: Blackstone (foremost legal scholar) said that FOS was enacted to deal with prior restraints.
1. Two options for jud’l review:
a. Activist: when it’s possible to give a broader definition than the framers might have intended (and there are good reasons for extending the reach), we can give force to larger values presumably intended to be in the const’n.
b. Narrow/ltd: Const’n should be construed narrowly b/c it interferes w/majoritarian govn’t and should only be used when unconst’ality is unequivocal.
Theories of the 1st A
a. The search for truth
i. Two possible conceptions:
1. (1) Narrow conception: the Self-Govn’t Rationale (Mikeljohn): FOS is a corrolary of selfgovernance; individuals must have at least a presumptive right to say what they think about public off’ls, institutions, etc. Some measure of FOS is necessary for the govn’t to be accountable to the people. a. Questions: how do we draw the line btwn political/self-governance-related speech and other speech?
2. (2) Broader conception: trad’lly private speech should be included too b/c FOS is valuable as a way to enable people to decide all types of things about their lives. ii. If this is the rationale, knowing falsehoods shouldn’t be protected.
b. Marketplace of ideas: best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the mkt
(Holmes, dissenting in Abrahams, infra).
c. Individual self-fulfillment:
i. Idea that what makes us human is our ability to express ourselves, and denying that means to deny something fundamental. Speech is more central to self-identity (therefore more worthy of protection) and it’s distinguishable from other activity.
d. Speech is good in its own right/speech promotes tolerance/etc.
General rules:
a. Content-neutral rules/statutes are presumptively ok as long as they regulate w/o regard to the ideas/message conveyed. b. Content-based rules/statutes are presumptively unconst’l
i. Exception: low-value speech, i.e. fighting words,

CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTIONS
Page 3 of 31

I.

II.

History of the Jurisprudence:
a. Controversies prior to WWI:
i. 1798 Sedition Act: made it a crime for any person to criticize/bring into disrepute members of Congress, the President, or the fed’l govn’t (10 years after ratification of 1st A); there was bitter controversy btwn the
Fed’lists and the Republicans, but fed’l judges (incl members of SCOTUS sitting on circuit) upheld const’ality of the Act. Never got to SCOTUS. ii. Civil War: suspension of habeas corpus and enforcement of military/martial law in parts of the country often resulted in detention/imprisonment of people b/c of their expression. Didn’t get to SCOTUS, but there were many examples of political figures (i.e. Clement Vallandingham) who went to jail for years for criticizing Lincoln and his policies.
b. WWI: Ct developed its FOS jurisprudence
i. Pres. Wilson decided that the US should enter the war (unpopular decision) when Germany and
France/England were making it difficult for US ships to get into ports of the other countries; when US ships tested Germany, The Germans sunk the US ships. B/c the US hadn’t been attacked, public support for the war was low, so the govn’t engaged in a propaganda/PR campaign to drum up support and make people suspicious of those who were against what the govn’t was doing. ii. Statutes:
1. Espionage Act of 1917: directed toward actual espionage and protection of military secrets, but the third section, which made it a crime to interfere w/US military success, promote success of enemies, or attempt to/actually obstruct the recruiting/enlistment svc of the US.
a. As interpreted/applied, it was used to silence dissent to the war.
2. Sedition Act of 1918 (to fill in Esp Act gaps): made it criminal for any person to say anything w/intent to cause contempt for the Govn’t/flag/Const’n or support the cause of any country fighting against the US.
Dangerous Ideas and Information
a. Note: initially, all of these statutes prohibit acts (i.e. obstructing the draft), rather than words explicitly.
b. Speech that Causes Unlawful Conduct
i. Bad tendency/constructive intent test (whether the natural and probable intent and effect of the publication/speech are such as are calculated to produce the result condemned by the statute)
1. Shaffer v. United States (9th Cir 1919): D conv’d of violating the Esp Act for mailing a book that allegedly contained disloyal/seditious ideas (vehemently anti-war and expressed view that war was a mistake/disaster). Ct aff’d his conv’n, holding that the natural and foreseeable consequence of reading the book was to discourage enlistment and encourage draft evasion and insubordination
(those who read the book would be more likely to do this than those who didn’t). Lack of actual intent was of no consequences; Ds were responsible for the natural and foreseeable consequences of their conduct. Theory: FOS doesn’t include freedom to cause others to engage in criminal conduct, so these acts were outside of the scope of the 1st A.
a. Note: this was the near-universal view of lower fed’l courts (capacity to cause harm is key even w/o actual intent to do so).
2. Goldstein: D made a movie accurately depicting the events of the Revolutionary War, incl a part where British soldiers massacred Colonial women and children; D was prosecuted under the Esp
Act b/c the scene had potential to turn Americans against the English (our allies); 10 years in prison. 3. Problem with this test: effectively made unlawful any public statement that criticized the war or draft; made it a crime for anyone to engage in political debate re: the merits of the war/draft unless they supported it. ii. Direct incitement test: (Judge Learned Hand): Esp Act is violated only if the speaker expressly advocates that readers/listeners should commit illegal acts (incitement to crime req’d).
1. Masses Publishing Co v. Patten (SDNY 1917): Postmaster denied Masses (mag) issue access to the press b/c its content (critical of the war) violated the Esp Act. Company sought a PI to forbid the postmaster from refusing the issue (this was w/in its power under the Act). Ct (per HAND) enjoined the postmaster from excluding the magazine from the mail by interpreting the Act in a way that enabled him to reach this result (didn’t hold the Act unconst’l, but said that it was ambiguous). Opinion started w/statement that the goal of the 1st A is to preserve a robust opp’ty for individuals to engage in public discourse and participate in public debate; must construe the 1st
A to achieve those goals. Hand conceded bad tendency, but said that it wasn’t sufficient to justify the restriction on speech, noting that speech is protected not only b/c it’s harmless, but despite the fact that it might be harmful. Test: Act is violated only if the speaker expressly advocates that readers/listeners should commit illegal acts (incitement to crime req’d). There was no express
Page 4 of 31

advocacy (just praise of law violators), so the publishing company should be allowed access to the mails. a. Note: this was an attempt to draw a categorical, per se rule that would be hard to evade
(and would also be speech protective w/o overruling the statute). Criticisms:
i. Underprotective of free speech (b/c it gives little protection to express advocacy of criminal conduct), i.e. telling soldiers to put down their weapons and desert)
1. Counterargument: speech that expressly advocates unlawful conduct isn’t part of FOS, just like knowing false statements of fact, based on the 1st A policy of democratic governance (speech that expressly advocates engaging in criminal acts isn’t discourse about politics
(which requires debating policy, not advocating defiance of it). ii. Overprotective of free speech (b/c it gives apparent absolute protection to speakers who don’t advocate law violation explicitly, like the “clever inciter,” a speaker who intends to incite but doesn’t use words of express incitement.)
1. Counterargument: it’s impossible to distinguish btwn explicit/specific intent to advocate law violation (btwn express advocator and clever inciter). Punishing those with no specific intent (“constructive intent” only) has a chilling effect.
2. Note on chilling effect: speakers rarely get the benefit of their own speech; if there’s a decent change they’ll get in trouble, they stop talking. This is a good argument for bright-line, per se rules.
b. Note: Masses was rev’d on appeal (in favor of a “bad tendency/constructive intent” test), and Hand also abandoned his view. Magazine was closed and all editors sent to prison. iii. The Clear and Present Danger Test/Evolution
1. Announcement of the CPD test:
a. Schenck v. US (SCOTUS 1919) (unanimous): Ds (members of Socialist Party) conv’d of conspiracy to violate the Esp Act by circulating a document to men who had been called for military svc (allegation: intended to obstruct recruiting/enlistment). Ct (per HOLMES) aff’d Ds’ conv’ns, spelling out the clear and present danger (CPD) test; speech can be punished if there is a danger of producing a harm that is (1) clear, (2) present, and it’s a
(3) danger that Congress has the right to prevent. Clear = significant probability that the danger will become a reality (involves balancing potential harm (making sure it’s sufficiently weighty) against govn’t interest.) Present = danger must be close in time/imminent. This channels efforts to avoid the harm into things other than suppressing speech (i.e. punish wrongdoer); predictions of the future are hazardous. No explicit reference to gravity of harm, but Holmes refers to the fact that what the Ds said may be ok at other times (not during wartime).
b. Three ways to think about gravity:
i. Irrelevant: question should be whether the speaker creates a CPD of a harm
Congress has a right to prevent, doesn’t matter what crime/harm it is. ii. Minimum standard: a speech that creates a CPD of, i.e., littering isn’t serious enough to justify restricting speech for that reason. Set the threshold wherever we want. iii. Variable: clarity/presence are matters of degree until we define them. Could involve a balancing test.
c. Note: Holmes noted that the 1st A isn’t limited to prohibiting prior restraints (in dicta) – this has been taken to forever solve this question.
2. Two other tests in a short time (seemingly abandoning CPD, or at the very least indicating that
CPD wasn’t the test the Ct had adopted for dealing with these types of statutes).
a. “Little breath that could kindle” test.
i. Frohwerk v. US (SCOTUS 1919): D convicted under the Esp Act re: series of publications in German newspaper that criticized sending American troops to
France. Ct aff’d his conv’n, held (per HOLMES) that a little “incitement” can cause a major result/reaction, and for that reason the speech can be regulated.
b. Bad tendency test (again)
i. Debs v US (SCOTUS 1919): D – nat’lly prominent figure, leader of Socialist
Party) was prosecuted after a speech during which he was critical of the war/draft and praised individuals in jail for resisting it. Ct (per HOLMES) unanimously aff’d his conv’n, saying that a D can be guilty if the words have a natural tendency and reasonably probable effect to obstruct the recruiting
Page 5 of 31

service, and the D had specific intent to do so in his mind (reciting jury instructions w/approval). Again, no mention of CPD. iv. Sharp divide btwn majority and Holmes/Brandeis and fighting over whether the CPD test is law:
1. Holmes’s (in dissent) “danger or intent” test:
a. Abrahams v. US (SCOTUS 1919): D anarchists prosecuted for distributing leaflets criticizing the sending of US troops to Russia (not an adversary in the war) and calling for a strike. Ds conv’d under the Sedition Act of 1918 (up until now, all prosecutions were under the Esp Act), which made it a crime to say anything bad about the govn’t, prez, flag, etc. Ct aff’d the conv’ns, rejecting 1st A argument and saying the matter was settled in Schenck and Frohwerk.
i. Dissent (HOLMES): says that the test should be that a present danger of immediate evil or present intent to bring it about justifies Congress restricting speech. Two components: (1) danger (not satisfied here b/c no present danger of immediate evil sufficient to justify punishing speech on grounds that it could harm the govn’t) OR (2) intent (satisfied b/c Ds clearly intended to cause people to refuse to participate in production of war materials); he tries to get around this by saying that specific intent was lacking, but this isn’t plausible reasoning
(narrow definition of specific intent would require intent to hinder the US in
WWI; he said that wasn’t present, but it’s clear that there was intent to hinder production of war materials). Holmes also adopted the “best test of truth” and
“mktplace of ideas” justifications for protecting freedom of speech, saying that
“when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths ... the best test of truth is to get it accepted in the competition of the market”
1. Note: this opinion gave birth to the trad’n of American jud’l tolerance of free speech and was the beginning of modern 1st A law.
2. Post-Abrahams, both sides (majority vs. Holmes/Brandeis) look to Schenck for the standard of speech critical of the govn’t.
a. Opposition:
i. Majority: finds a low standard for suppression of speech, something like a bad tendency test. ii. Holmes/Brandeis: read Holmes’s dissent in Abrahams like it had been a part of the Schenck reasoning/line of cases since the beginning. They had to do this to make the claim that the majority had departed from settled law (at this time, dissenting justices who lost thought themselves bound by the majority opinion; it was unorthodox to continue to dissent).
1. Why did Holmes split off in Abrahams? It’s possible that Holmes was moved by the Ds and thought their punishment was over the top.
Holmes also communicated with Hand about 1st A and FOS and had a different opinion when he came back before Abrahams.
b. Cases: Shaffer, Person, and Gilbert were decided 7-2.
i. Gilbert: D conv’d for making a speech and saying that American democracy doesn’t work. Ct aff’d his conviction, saying that everything he said was false and he wasn’t entitled to protection (making its own declarations about what was true/false re: govn’t motives. This is pure seditious libel.
v. Deference, balancing, and reasonableness:
1. Advocacy of unlawful conduct in the future and statutes that prevent a certain category of speech
(prior cases made certain acts/consequences unlawful).
a. Gitlow v. New York (SCOTUS 1925): D conv’d in NY (state statute), during peacetime, of criminal anarchy (for printing the Left Wing Manifesto) for allegedly advocating and teaching the duty, necessity, and propriety of overthrowing and overturning organized govn’t by force, violence, or unlawful means. Ct (per SANFORD) admitted that there was no effect (no overthrow), and aff’d his conv’n, rejecting the CPD test and balancing FOS against preservation of the state, making every presumption in favor of the statute
(reasonableness test). Noted that the Manifesto expressly advocated use of unlawful force and violence for the purpose of overthrowing the govn’t. Note that overthrow is outside the protection of the 1st A (seemingly) under the “democratic self governance” rationale. Asks whether it’s reasonable to require the govn’t to wait until there’s a CPD
(esp with a great potential harm like violent overthrow)
i. Dissent (HOLMES): advocating the CPD test from Schenck; says that every idea is an incitement; “eloquence may set fire to reason.” Since the publication
Page 6 of 31

2.

3.

wasn’t specific and didn’t present a clear/present danger, wouldn’t have aff’d.
States that, if people set forth odious/misguided/bad ideas, we should let those ideas have their own way (this is now the fundamental meaning of the 1st A). ii. Note: the speech here was different from other cases; three types: (1) Discussion of public policy, no advocacy, but may create a danger of some harm; Schenck,
Frohwerk, Debs; (2) advocacy of unlawful conduct in the future; Gitlow; (3) incitement, where speaker expressly advocates unlawful conduct now;
Abrahams.
iii. Note: this case brought up the question of the appropriate level of deference when the legislature expressly sets forth a category of speech for prohibition.
Sanford argued for reasonableness review, with lots of deference to the judgment of the legislature. Holmes doesn’t respond to this argument.
Membership in an organization:
a. Whitney v. California (SCOTUS 1927): D (well-educated woman D) supported the
Communist Labor Party (radical side of the Socialist Party); she called for advancement of the party’s goals (overthrow) through the political process, but was defeated. T.Ct conv’d her for violation of the Cal Syndaclism Act (basically just for being a member of the organization), and SCOTUS (per SANFORD) aff’d her conv’n. Ct again gave deference to the legislature, saying that joint action can cause greater danger to the public. i. Concurrence (Brandeis/Holmes): (continuing to adhere to the CPD test) deference is inappropriate, citing substantive due process cases for the proposition that activist jud’l review is sometimes req’d (esp in a case like this).
Said that there is something suspect about a statute that makes it a crime to get together w/other people for the purpose of speaking. Announces new standard
/test that requires incitement and CPD; requiring incitement (more than advocacy), imminence (danger may befall before an opp’ty for full discussion); and a serious evil (more than just a trivial harm to society.
1. Five propositions re: the Framers’ view of FOS (and why they make it inappropriate to punish membership in an organization)
a. (a) Framers believed the 1st A would allow men to develop their faculties, express/develop curiosity;
b. (b) Framers thought that FOS was indespensible to discovery of political truth/self-governance;
c. (c) Framers eschewed silence coerced by law;
d. (d) Framers believed that the fitting remedy for evil counself is good ones;
e. (e) Framers didn’t exalt order at the expense of liberty and understood that freedom is not “free.” ii. Note on deference: it’s not “just that;” there are levels of deference in EPC and the notion of deference/nondeference is probably too specific (se need a more nuanced approach to jud’l review); should be determined by a closer examination of the nature of the claimed violation and the extent to which it undermines the purposes/values the clause is thought to protect.
b. Two questions with membership cases: is the act of joining an organization protected? If so, does it depend on the nature of the organization one joins (or whether the organization could be prosecuted)?
i. Eventually, in the Communist era, Ct said that the test (for punishing someone for membership in the Comm Party) was that D had to have (1) known of the unlawful advocacy/acts of the organization; (2) specific intent to engage in/further that unlawful activity; and (3) active membership in the organization.
1. Concern of chilling effect.
c. Post-Whitney: 25 years w/o further SCOTUS decision that directly addressed the problem
i. WWII: those who sympathized w/Nazis were denaturalized (SCOTUS overturned most denaturalization/deportation judgments, saying that clear/unmistakable denunciation of commitment to American citizenship was req’d); shows increasing respect for freedom of expression in wartime. ii. End of WWII: US almost immediately entered the Cold War after relations with the Soviet Union came up (fear of communists was a powerful tool).
New test: gravity minus improbability weighed against govn’t interest.
Page 7 of 31

a.

4.

5.

Dennis v. United States (SCOTUS 1951): Ds (leaders of the Communisty Party) were conv’d of violating the Smith Act (conspiring to organize as the Communist party and advocate/teach the duty/necessity of overthrowing the govn’t). Ct (per VINSON) aff’d their convictions by assuming that Ds had violated the statute (just determining which 1st
A test to apply). We would expect the Ct to apply the Gitlow/Whitney balancing test since this is a speech statute, but instead Ct applies the CPD (Shenck, Frohwerk, Debs) test that’s trad’lly used in nonspeech statutes. Ct notes that subsequent opinions have tended toward Holmes/Brandeis approach in Gitlow/Whitney. Test: Ct must sak whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. As gravity of harm goes up, less imminence is req’d to justify restriction. Look to all three factors. Ct said that Communism is dangerous (gravity) and the danger is clear/present, so conv’ns are proper.
i. Note: if the Ct had examined the facts, the result of the case may have come out like Yates, infra (rev’ing the conv’n). Ds weren’t advocating overthrow, they were teaching doctrine. ii. Note: this test is unclear (all balancing tests are, to an extent); ambiguity is rarely used neutrally. People will be encouraged to exaggerate actual danger to state. This was a revisionist opinion. Hand saw this test as more speech protective than in Masses; under that test, if you advocate unlawful conduct, you’re outside of the 1st A, but here, limit regulation to situations in which D advocates unlawful overthrow of govn’t, but D can only be punished if there is
CPE (this gives substantial protection even to Ds who advocate unlawful conduct – but not the Ds in the instant case).
1. Why require imminence? Three possible answers:
a. (1) There are many things the govn’t can do to undermine potential violent overthrow w/o punishing speech (go after illegal acts)
b. (2) Counterspeech: when things aren’t imminent, there’s ample opp’ty for counterspeech. Not so the other way around.
c. (3) No advocacy of violent overthrow in the abstract: no serious danger of advocacy causing a serious problem unless there are substantial premises in the argument that carry weight. i. Is this a justification for a “magic words of overthrow” test? iii. Concurrence (FRANKFURTER): last gasp of “reasonableness” test; would aff. iv. Concurrence (JACKSON): “reasonableness” and deference; speech that expressly advocates unlawful conduct should be deemed virtually unprotected by 1st A.
v. Dissents (BLACK, DOUGLAS) would apply CPD as formulated by D in Whitney.
Post-Dennis doctrinal standpoint:
a. 7/8 justices reject Gitlow, with only Frankfurter adhering to reasonableness test.
b. 7/8 justices agree that even express advocacy of violence is entitled to at least some degree of 1st A protection (only Jackson disagrees)
c. 6/8 justices (all except Black/Douglas) agree that express advocacy of unlawful conduct is entitled to less 1st A protection than other forms of speech.
d. Clear majority adopts some version of the CPD test.
Post-Dennis case history:
a. Yates v. US (SCOTUS 1957): Ct adopted a narrow interpretation of the Smith Act to avoid const’l doubts, and in so doing overturned Ds’ convictions. Factually, it was a rerun of Dennis, but here, the Ct didn’t assume that Ds had violated the statute. Ct notes the line btwn advocacy of abstract doctrine and advocacy of action. Ct (per Harlan) noted that this distinction was critical.
i. Post-Yates, every then-pending prosecution against individuals b/c of membership in or involvement with the Communist Party were dismissed by the govn’t. b. Dennis + Yates: Express advocacy of specific acts of violence may be punished (even if they’re not to take place until the indefinite future) only if the govn’t can show that the speech is dangerous (discounted CPD test in Dennis) and the gravity of the harm is great.
Advocacy/discussion of ideas/principles can’t be punished, regardless of the speaker’s
Page 8 of 31

intent and, presumably, regardless of the danger, as long as the speaker doesn’t use express advocacy of unlawful conduct that is specific/concrete.
c. Ct started moving back toward a Brandeis-like view of the 1st A in the context of advocacy: i. Kinglsy Int’l Pictures Corp v. Regents of NY (SCOTUS 1959): Ct held NY statute that prohibited issuance of licenses to exhibit movies portraying sexual immorality as desirable behavior unconst’l. Said that there must be express incitement and danger that it would be immediately acted on; neither is present so punishment is inappropriate. ii. Bond v. Floud (SCOTUS 1966): Ct wouldn’t allow GA House to refuse to seat an elected representative b/c of statements he made criticizing the Vietnam War.
Speech wasn’t a call for unlawful action (express advocacy of evasion of the draft). vi. Brandenburg (current approach): advocacy can be prohibited when it is directly related to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and it’s likely to incite or produce such action.
1. Brandenburg v. Ohio (SCOTUS 1969): Leader of KKK was conv’d under Ohio Syndicalism statute after he phoned reporters to get them to come to a cross burning w/a speech. Ct noted the distinction btwn abstract teaching and preparing a group for violent action and rev’d the conv’n b/c the jury instructions didn’t make the distinction. New test (advocacy can be prohibited when it is directly related to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and it’s likely to produce such action) included every factor of the CPD test and made the most speech protective test so far.
Likelihood of lawless action, imminence, magnitude, and intent to produce/incite unlawful action req’d. In that sense, test combines the most speech protective elements of Hand’s Masses test
(incitement to unlawful action) with the Holmes-Brandeis conception of CPD.
a. Note: general understanding of this test is that speech can be punished b/c of its tendency to cause others to engage in unlawful acts only if the speech expressly incites unlawful conduct and only if the danger is likely/imminent (in a narrowly defined meaning of the phrase). Express Advocacy
Discussion
b.

c.

Imminent Danger
1
2

Future Danger
3
4

Relative strength of Brandenburg test: (see chart) WWI cases would allow restriction in
1, 2, 3, 4. CPD would allow restriction in 1, 2. Yates would allow restriction in 1, 3.
Brandenburg allows restriction only in 1.
c. Why make such a protective test?
i. Blasie: we make strong tests to tie our hands and ensure that in times of crisis we don’t fall victim to the same pathologies as in the past. ii. Most obvious cost: overprotects speech in times when there’s no crisis. It’s tricky to make legal rules to anticipate the worst case hypothetical that may never arise in the real world.
d. Does Brandenburg apply outside of criminal punishment? Is the 1st A limited to criminal punishment?
i. i.e. student publishes editorial in HS newspaper advocating violence against the
US, public university denies him admissions.
Threats and Speech that “Threatens”
i. Warnings are protected, threats are not.
1. Warning vs. Threat:
a. Threats are a way to induce someone to engage in conduct by coercion; to the extent that it influences a person’s conduct, it’s not because of persuasion/information, it’s because of force. Those threats that are unlawful (not threatening not to re-elect a judge) and express (not a website that says “there are people opposed to abortion, so abortionists must beware that if they continue in this practice, they will be targeted”).
i. Legal “threat”; Bridges v. California (SCOTUS 1941): T.Ct. ruled against one of two rival labor unions, D (one union) published a statement saying that the ruling was outrageous and threatened a strike if the ruling wasn’t overturned. D was found guilty of contempt, but SCOTUS rev’d his conviction, saying that there was no CPD (under Schenck) and restriction on speech would be significant. Page 9 of 31

b.

d.

Only real difference between a warning and an implicit threat is intent; this is why we require threats to be explicit (straightforward rule). ii. Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activities (9th Cir. 2002): (“The Nuremberg Files
Case”) Ct enjoined a website as a threat; the site had “wanted”-type posters of known abortion providers and X-d out the names of the ones who had been murdered. Although the individuals who ran the website weren’t explicitly threatening anyone, the site could easily be interpreted as encouraging people to murder doctors. Real question is whether the intent to intimidate other people, to coerce them by fear a threat w/in the meaning of the 1st A? Apparently, it was. Clarify this case.
Speech that Provokes a Hostile Audience Reaction
i. Basic summary of the law: in the absence of extraordinary state necessity (beyond what has been demonstrated in any case in history), the govn’t can’t prohibit speech b/c it’s potentially harmful unless the speaker has stepped out of the core of freedom of speech and done something like engage in incitement/ threats/ fighting words. ii. Disrupting the community: CPD is generally req’d for the govn’t to be able to restrict speech here:
1. Unfavorable response from listeners not enough to justify regulating speech w/o CPD.
a. Terminiello v. Chicago (SCOTUS 1949): D gave a speech to an auditorium filled with people, there were 1000 angry protesters outside, and D goaded his opponents and spoke like a facist. Ct rev’d his conv’n, saying that the jury charge that D could be found guilty if his speech included expression that might “stir the public to anger, invite dispute, bring about unrest, or create a disturbance” was improper (it should have said that the jury must find a CPD of a serious substantive evil more than just unrest); part of free speech is to invite dispute, and it can’t be regulated just b/c ideas expressed annoy/offend the audience. i. Note: we protect offensive ideas b/c speech may serve its highest purpose when it makes people angry, and b/c we don’t want to give hecklers a veto on what can be said just b/c it’s unpopular. On the other side, offensive speech can create real harms. ii. Note: an ordinance re: annoyance/offensive sound (i.e. no loudspeakers after 9 pm) is less problematic if it’s not based on content, b/c typical problems (govn’t silencing unpopular/unfavorable views) don’t come into play.
1. It’s problematic to allow the govn’t to decide what speech is offensive/valuable. 2. Speech not amounting to a CPD to public health or security may not be abridged under the guise of preserving public speech:
a. Cantwell v. Connecticut (SCOTUS 1940): D played a record on the street attacking religion (esp Catholicism); people were upset, a few said they were tempted to beat him up. Ct applied CPD test to D’s as-applied challenge to the breach of the peace statute under which he was conv’d; Ct said that the state couldn’t const’lly apply a generally valid statute such as this one to these facts.
i. Note: this case was decided btwn Gitlow and Whitney. Also note that D wasn’t conv’d b/c of the noise of the recording, but the ideas in it.
3. Protective suppression: police may act to suppress speech that, in their judgment, presents a COD of causing breach of the peace/threat to public safety. (Note: this case is probably wrongly decided; don’t cite it).
a. Feiner v. New York (SCOTUS 1951): D addressed an open-air meeting with a large, racially mixed crowd. Officers arrived in response to a complaint, and heard D urging black people to take up arms and fight, crowd stirred up, one person commented that police couldn’t control the crowd and another person threatened violence if the police didn’t act. They stepped in and arrested D when he refused to stop speaking twice. Ct aff’d the conviction, saying that CPD of riot/disorder/threat to public safety justified police stepping in. Ct, per VINSON, said that the crowd’s behavior and D’s refusal to stop talking justified police stepping in.
i. Note: case decided when Ct was accepting Dennis (not the most speech protective period). Also note: Ct hasn’t upheld a conv’n under this principle in over 50 years.
1. There is a real danger in allowing the govn’t to punish a speaker; police officers with a lot of discretion may respond with more hostility than the audience and they’re more likely to exaggerate the potential danger.
But we don’t want to make the police disperse the audience, either.
Page 10 of 31

e.

ii. Dissent (BLACK): responsibility of police was to protect the speaker, not tell him to stop.
b. Opposite approach (probably correct)
i. Edwards v. South Carolina (SCOTUS 1963): Black high school/college students protested discrimination on the S.C. State House grounds. Speech contained no threat, no interference, Ds were arrested after they didn’t disperse when told to.
Ct rev’d Ds convictions as violation of Ds 1st A rights; students were punished for the views they were expressing. ii. Cox v. Louisiana (SCOTUS 1965): Black students gathered to protest arrest of others on the same day; informed city of the march, went along with police requests, toward the end, the speaker encouraged students to go to segregated diners and sit in. Sheriff said this was inflammatory, ordered them to disperse, and used tear gas when they wouldn’t. Speaker was conv’d, but Ct overturned conv’n, saying there was no evidence that the students were ever hostile, aggressive, or unfriendly. iii. Gregory v City of Chicago (SCOTUS 1969): D led protestors to Mayor’s home to protest segregation, they were initially peaceful, but white onlookers gathered and threw things at protesters; eventually police asked D to lead protesters away, when he refused, they were arrested. Ct unanimously overturned the conv’n, saying that there was no evidence that D’s conduct was disorderly.
c. Current approach: the govn’t/police have to call more cops when a situation gets bad; they can’t arrest people for their own safety. This is a rare time when the Const’n is interpreted to require affirmative govn’t resources.
i. Only circumstances where the govn’t could punish the speaker: (1) when the violence is imminent and there’s nothing more the police can do; or (2) there were no police officers present at the time.
4. Marches and Injunctions
a. The Skokie Controversy: Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, IL (large Jewish population); city granted injunction against it and denied a stay/petition for expedited appeal. Ct rev’d the denial of the stay, saying that the city couldn’t punish/restrict speech b/c it would cause people to be emotionally disturbed, and said that the city had to give expedited review. iii. Fighting Words (FWs) – LVS
1. Of low value (therefore can be regulated) b/c they’re analogous to spitting on someone or hitting someone; don’t promote search for truth or democratic self-governance); thus, the benefit is clearly outweighed by social interest in order/morality. In add’n to adding no value, it triggers a harm. 2. A govn’t can proscribe language used in a face-to-face interaction tending to incite violence
a. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (SCOTUS 1942): D was calling religions “rackets,” an unfriendly crowd assembled and a marshall warned D that it was getting ugly; D called him a “racketeer” and a “facist.” D was conv’d under an ordinance prohibiting the utterance of words tending to harass, annoy, or deride another. Ct (per Murphy) upheld his conv’n, saying that FWs are any words that would incite a normal/reasonable man to fight). 3. Ct has held that the doctrine is extremely narrow and applies only in face-to-face encounters where one person directs a personal epithet at another and where the other is likely to respond with violence. Not a single case in nearly 60 years since Chaplinsky where Ct has upheld a conv’n under fighting words.
Speech that Discloses Confidential Information
i. General rule: if the press obtains access to classified nat’l security info (that we can assume at least has relevance to public debate) the govn’t will almost never be able to punish/restrain the press for publishing the information (maybe if there is a clear/imminent danger of a grave harm). ii. The govn’t must meet a heavy burden to justify prior restraints on publication of classified information
1. NYT v. US (SCOTUS 1971): NYT started publishing the Pentagon Papers (had confidential information); US sought to enjoin further publication and sought an injunction, saying that publication would endanger nat’l security and prolong the Vietnam War. Black/Douglas (C) strongly condemned any prior restraint; Brennan (C) argued for use of SS for prior restraints;
White/Marshall (C) emphasized absence of statutory authority for the Cts to impose such an injunction; Stewart (C) left the door open; said president had power to seek injunction to protect
Page 11 of 31

III.

IV.

nat’l security, but the need for prior restraint wasn’t justified in the case. Burger, Harlan,
Blackmun (D) urged allowing an injunction of publication until more thorough review of material. iii. Licensing: acceptable with prior consensual K in high-security situation
1. Snepp v. US (SCOTUS 1980): fmr CIA agent went around agreement that the CIA had to review books to see if they contained confidential information before a fmr agent could publish. Ct said the agreement was OK and imposed a constructive trust on the book’s profits (even though there was no confidential information published).
Overbreadth, Vagueness, and Prior Restraint
a. Overbreadth and Vagueness
i. Overbreadth: laws that regulate substantially more speech than the Const’n allows to be regulated and laws in which a person to whom the law may constitutionally be applied can argue that it would be unconst’l as applied to others are overbroad. Usually arise in as-applied challenges.
1. Statutes abridging freedom of speech must be narrowly drawn to abridge only unprotected expr’n
a. Gooding v. Wilson (SCOTUS 1972): D was arrested during an antiwar demonstration when he used highly derisive language to cops; he was conv’d under a statute proscribing words tending to cause a breach of the peace. Ct rev’d his conv’n, saying that statutes abridging freedom of speech must be narrowly drawn to abridge only unprotected expression; this statute impermissibly covers other types of language (protected speech can disturb the peace).
i. Note: this case was the high water mark of overbreadth doctrine.
2. Substantial overbreadth is required; this can be demonstrated by showing a significant number of situations where a law could be applied to prohibit const’lly protected speech.
a. Broadrick v. Oklahoma (SCOTUS 1973): Ct upheld the const’ality of an Okla law that prohibited political activities by govn’t employees; challengers said the law was overbroad b/c it prohibited const’lly protected activity like wearing political buttons. Ct acknowledged some overbreadth, but said the law wasn’t substantially overbroad and wouldn’t invalidate the law on its face.
b. Houston v. Hill (SCOTUS 1987): Ct declared unconst’l an ordinance that made it unlawful to interrupt police officers in the performance of their duties (D shouted at cops to divert their attention from arresting his friend). Ct said that substantial amount of const’lly protected speech and gives the police unconst’l discretion in enforcement. ii. Vagueness: a law is unconst’lly vague if a reasonable person can’t tell what speech is prohibited and what’s permitted. 1. Problems with vague statutes: they allow for interpretation in an unequal way (and allows for discriminatory application of the law). They also fail to provide sufficient notice to people to let them know what it is they can or can’t do.
2. Add more from Chemerinsky, p. 911. Lovell v. Grifin?
b. Prior Restraint
i. Framers were aware of it and wary. Hard to define: it’s used to describe administrative and jud’l orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur. From Alexander v. United States (SCOTUS 1993). ii. A statute authorizing prior restraints on publication violates freedom of the press
1. Near v. Minnesota (SCOTUS 1931): Minn statute authorized abatement (as a public nuisance) of a malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspaper. D newspaper had published argicles critical of local public off’ls in Minneapolis, and they were enjoined. Ct rev’d grant of injunction, saying that the main purpose of the 1st A was to prevent prior restraints. iii. Collateral bar rule (why prior restraints are so bad): if you violate a statute that’s of questionable constitutionality, you can raise a const’l defense. But if there’s a court order against you, you must obey it, and once it has been issued, you can’t argue that it’s unconst’l.
Low Value Speech (LVS):
a. Introduction: there are some circumstances in which the Ct seems to be willing to allow content-based restrictions, esp when the speech is outside of the “core” of 1st A speech.
i. “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Const’l problem” – Murphy, J, in Chaplinsky ii. If speech is w/in the “core” of protection of the 1st A, cts will only restrict it if it creates a CPD or serious harm or something else. It’s assumed, however, that all speech is fully protected by the 1st A, and a ct/state must come up with an affirmative reason why the speech is outside of the protection of the 1st A. iii. Once speech is determined to be outside of the core of the 1st A, Ct engages in categorical balancing
(analysis of circumstances in which speech falling w/in the category may be restricted consistently w/the
1st A).
Page 12 of 31

b.
c.
d.

e.

f.

Fighting Words (see pt. II(d)(ii), supra)
Brandenburg Incitement (see pt. II(b)(vi), supra)
False Statements of Fact: Libel
i. Introduction: standards differ depending on the person about whom the false statement is made.
1. Preliminary inquiry: whether the speech constitutes a false statement of fact. Once this is established, we engage in categorical balancing to determine the test for each individual subset of
LVS.
ii. Libel and public officials: falsity + reckless disregard (difficult for a public off’l to win a suit)
1. NYT v. Sullivan (SCOTUS 1964): NYT published false info in an advertisement re: a public off’l
(w/regard to his off’l duties); he sued for libel and got a money judgment against the newspaper.
Ct held that a State can’t award damages in a libel action brought by a public off’l against critics of his off’l conduct; a public off’l can’t sue privately for a statement made about his off’l activities; the burden is on the off’l to prove falsehood and that the publisher afted with reckless sdisregard for the truth.
a. Note: criticized as under protective (“reckless disregard” is a low standard compared to
“knowing falsehood”) and overprotective (standard is so high that it’s hard to win a libel suit). Now, robust FOS means the freedom to make inaccurate statements. iii. Public figures (who are not public off’ls): fill this in. iv. Private figures: falsity + negligence (easier to win a libel suit); can recover punitive damages.
1. Gertz:
v. False statement of fact about the Govn’t with reckless disregard for the truth: this would seem to meet the requirements of NYT v. Sullivan (esp if speech is of low value); but this is seditious libel.
“Nonnewsworthy” Disclosures of “Private” Information
i. Introduction: usually embodied in COAs for invasion of privacy
1. Arguments in favor of the tort: we have nothing to lose from a 1st A standpoint b/c these statements aren’t relevant to public debate; no legitimate value in public disclosure + infliction of harm on individuals is a good case for it.
2. Arguments against the tort: nearly impossible to administer; how do we determine what is
“nonnewsworthy”? Posner says we are arguing about the right of an individual to deceive others about who they really are. If you care enough about keeping something private, don’t disclose. ii. Every time a case like this comes up, the Ct gets around it. iii. Publicly available private information not protected:
1. Cox Broadcasting Corp v. Cohn (SCOTUS 1975): P’s daughter was raped and killed, reporter discovered her name and broadcast it; P sued under tort of public disclosure statute. Ct held that a state may not extend a COA for damages for invasion of privacy caused by truthful publication of publicly available documents. Ct noted that this was not low value speech
a. Note: if the Ct ruled the other way, it would be hard for the media to inform citizens of anything. If there are privacy concerns, the state can seal the information.
2. Information of public concern protected (even when obtained illegally)
a. Bartnicki v. Vopper (SCOTUS 2001): Ct held that antiwiretap statutes can’t const’lly be applied to a radio station that broadcasts the tape of an unlawfully intercepted phone call where the subject of the call was a matter of public concern and the broadcaster didn’t directly participate in the wiretap. iv. In most states, truthful disclosure of private facts about a person is a tort if the disclosure would be “highly offensive” to a reasonable person and it’s not newsworthy.
Commercial Advertising
i. Commercial advertising and the goals of the 1st A
1. Determining whether something is comm’l speech:
a. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp (SCOTUS 1983): Ct held that informational pamphlets dealing with contraceptives were comm’l speech although generally informative b/c they mentioned the brand name of condoms D mfr’d. Combination of factors made the pamphlet comm’l speech: conceded to be advertisements, reference to a specific product, and economic motivation (no one alone would have been determinative)
b. Content of speech is determinative; not comm’l or profit motive.
c. Alternative proposed test (fill in name of commentator): (1) speech that refers to a specific brand name product/service; (2) made by a speaker w/a fin’l interest in the sale of the advertised product/service; (3) that doesn’t advertise an activity itself protected by the 1st A.
2. Why shouldn’t it be protected?
a. (1) Even though it’s literally speech, it’s not the kind of speech the 1st A is about;
Page 13 of 31

i. Valentine v. Chrestensen (SCOTUS 1942): Ct upheld prohibition on distribution of any handbill/other advertising matter on any street, saying that the 1st A imposes no restraint on the govn’t re: pure comm’l advertising.
b. (2) In the same way threats are unprotected as analogous to coercion and fighting words are unprotected as analogous to assault, comm’l advertising is analogous to economic behavior (REHNQUIST’S view);
c. (3) When in doubt, presumption of the 1st A is to say that speech is of high value, but
POWELL is concerned about giving comm’l advertising as much protection as other, more valuable forms of speech and thus diluting 1st A protection.
3. Note: Ct is wary of allowing states to limit advertising to protect people from its content.
a. Carey v. Population Svcs Int’l (SCOTUS 1977): Ct invalidated a prohibition on advertising of contraceptives; state was concerned that the ads would be offensive/embarrassing to those exposed to them. ii. Comm’l advertising = protected speech (not LVS) – no longer the Ct’s approach
1. VA State Bd of Pharmacy v. VA Citizens Consumer Council (SCOTUS 1976): Statute provided that any pharmacist licensed in VA is guilty of unprof’l conduct if he publishes, advertises, or promotes (directly or indirectly) any amount or fee for drugs that can be dispensed only by prescription; Ct held it unconst’l, saying that speech that does no more than propose a comm’l transaction doesn’t lack all protection; a state can’t suppress the dissemination of concededly truthful information about lawful activity just b/c it fears the information’s effect on disseminators and recipients. Noted society’s interest in the free flow of information. iii. Court develops four-part test for advertising regulation and holds comm’l advertising is low-value speech.
1. Central Hudson Gas v. Public Svc Comm’r of NY (SCOTUS 1980): Order permitted electric utilities to engage in inst’l and independent advertising, but not ads designed to stimulate increased use of electricity. Ct held the order unconst’l, saying that ads can be regulated as long as the regulation directly serves a legitimate govn’t interest. Implicit idea that comm’l advertising is protected less than fully protected 1st A speech. Test: (1) Whether the expression is protected by the 1st A (must be lawful and not misleading); (2) Whether the asserted govn’tal interest is substantial; if 1 and 2 are met; (3) Whether the regulation directly advances the govn’tal interest
(means/ends fit; Fox later clarified this to mean “reasonably related”); (4) Whether the govn’tal interest could be advanced by a more limited restriction on comm’l speech. This ad failed on the third prong b/c the regulation was too extensive.
a. Clarification: Bd of Trustees of SUNY v Fox (SCOTUS 1989): third prong of test doesn’t mean that the regulation must be the least restrictive means that could effectively protect the govn’t interest; reasonable fit is all that’s req’d. iv. Greater-includes-the-lesser for advertising of regulable activities (incl situations where states regulate advertising to “protect” residents/citizens:
1. Adopting the approach:
a. Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. (SCOTUS 1986): Ct upheld Puerto
Rico statute that legalized some casino gambling but prohibited advertising of casino gambling (aimed at PR residents). Ct said that, since the govn’t could ban the conduct entirely, it could allow the activity and lessen its impact by restricting ads.
2. Backing off:
a. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (SCOTUS 1996): Statute prohibited advertising in any manner for the price of alcoholic beverages offered for sale in the state (except for price tags/signs not visible from the street). Ct invalidated statute, saying that truthful, nonmisleading comm’l messages can’t be completely restricted (fourth prong of Central
Hudson). Ct is wary of allowing states to restrict advertising in a paternalistic way (b/c it doesn’t trust peoples’ reactions or wants to shield them from potentially harmful products). Ct said that if the state wants to reduce consumption of alcoholic beverages, it can use other less restrictive means to achieve that goal (strange: appears to adopt “least restrictive means” test, but Fox explicitly disclaimed that). “Least restrictive means” approach is diffickult to beat; you can always raise taxes to accomplish any goal.
b. Complete ban on advertising will almost never work:
i. Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly (SCOTUS 2001): Ct invalidated Mass AG’s regulation that prohibited outdoor advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Ct invalidated the regulation based on fourth factor of Central
Hudson b/c there was no reasonable fit btwn the means/ends of the regulatory scheme (complete ban was too broad).
Page 14 of 31

3.

g.

Current test for truthful (+ nondeceptive) advertising: where the govn’ts interest is in limiting the advertising b/c it wants to effect consumer behavior, the govn’t may not attempt to achieve this goal by interfering with the advertisement. (Note: Ct hasn’t explicitly stated this)
a. Argument against this approach: Comm’l advertising isn’t so important that we shouldn’t allow the govn’t to use it to regulate/reduce use of products.
v. Political advertising: fill in.
Obscenity:
i. Introduction: most often cited example of speech the Ct has held is unprotected under 1st A. Two main questions are (1) definition of obscenity; and (2) why obscenity is considered unprotected.
1. General approach: obscenity is unprotected and can be prohibited completely except for pvt poss’n in one’s own home. If obscenity is w/in the doctrine, a state may punish individuals for broadcasting/posting material that constitutes obscenity (even in pvt theatre for comm’l purposes,
Paris). Obscenity is so narrow it’s not worth pursuing at this point.
2. Obscenity is the most problematic category of LVS b/c it’s vulnerable to the challenge that it’s about preventing people from holding values/attitudes about themselves, society, and morals based on censorship. ii. History:
1. Framers: didn’t regard obscenity as w/in the 1st A itself (Brennan in Roth). Obscenity may be
“speech,” but it’s really only loosely defined entertainment and its relationship to the core values of the 1st A is attenuated.
a. There were no laws against obscenity in the colonies and there’s not really any way to know how the framers felt about obscenity.
2. Hicklin: test for obscenity was “whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” Lots of suppression.
3. 1930s: ct rejected that test and adopted a standard focusing on the effect on the avg person and the dominant theme of the work. iii. Restricting/regulating obscene material:
1. Reasons not to protect: It’s of low social value (but it’s dangerous to say that since it’s not
“serious political” content, it’s not protected
a. Appeals primarily to the prurient interest: makes people “horny” and is defined by physiological effect. Schauer says this makes obscenity like a sex aid carried out by words. i. Analogy: theat = physical coercion, FWs = punching someone, comm’l advertising = economic activity, obscenity = sex aid.
b. Obscenity isn’t an idea, it’s a means of communicating.
c. If we treat obscenity like other speech, we give it more protection and (b/c of limited jud’l resources) other, more serious speech gets less protection by comparison.
2. Reasons to restrict obscenity:
a. It erodes the moral tone of society
b. Obscenity cause people to engage in undesirable (immoral/illegal/seriously illegal) activity in the eyes of the state; careful, this is a bad tendency argument.
c. Protecting minors or unconsenting adults from unwanted exposure to obscene materials. iv. Current state of the law: obscenity used to be very broadly defined, but now it has been narrowed to the point that it has virtually no bite; community standards have collapsed with exposure to explicit material.
Social factors have trumped const’l doctrine.
v. Early test:
1. Roth v. US (SCOTUS 1957): Roth was conv’d of violating a fed’l statute prohibiting any person to mail any obscene publication. Ct (per Brennan) aff’d his conv’n, saying that obscenity is utterly w/o redeeming social importance (historical support); but sex and obscenity aren’t anonymous
(obscenity = material that deals with sex in a manner appealing to the prurient interest; doesn’t include portrayal of sex in art, literature, scientific works, etc.). Test: whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest and is utterly w/o redeeming social value (this last part came from
Memoirs v. Massachusetts (SCOTUS 1966).
a. Note: this test was a nightmare in practice; wasn’t sufficiently protective of free speech but the Ct couldn’t agree on a new test. Ct decided a number of opinions overturning conv’ns (in 10 years) w/per curiam opinions (no opinion).
b. Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp v. Regents of NY (SCOTUS 1959): Ct invalidated a NY movie licensing law that banned films portraying acts of sexual immprality or presenting such acts as proper behavioral patterns. Ct said that the concept of sexual immorality
Page 15 of 31

differed from the concept of obscenity and held that state law prevented advocacy of an idea protected by the basic guarantee of the 1st A. vi. Current three-part test (more protective)
1. Miller v. California (SCOTUS 1973): Group of obscenity cases; D conducted a mass mailing to advertise adult material (mailings included pictures/drawings of nudity, etc.) Ct redefined the obscenity guidelines with a new test (while rev’ing his conv’n); holding that obscenity can be regulated if it meets the three-part definition: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary standards (community-based; jury is the repository of community norms), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Ct held that any statute regulating obscene expression had to stipulate the acts the depiction of which would be deemed obscene (to reduce vagueness); in replacing “utterly w/o redeeming social value” with “no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” Ct expanded the concept of obscenity (saying that the old definition was too restrictive and gave communities too little opp’ty to restrict speech).
a. Dissent (BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, DOUGLAS) definitional concerns and vagueness issues were so severe (and state interests weren’t particularly strong), so it’s necessary to cabin the circumstances in which obscenity could be regulated to only the most clear, direct circumstances. Just b/c obscenity is LVS, that doesn’t end the inquiry.
i. Note: Brennan wasn’t comfortable with the idea that obscenity was LVS; he thought the “utterly w/o redeeming social value” was predicate to the judgment that the speech could be regulated more freely than other types of expression.
He also thought we shouldn’t restrict obscenity as btwn consenting adults.
b. Note: problem with using “community standards,” does it make sense to have the Const’n mean different things in different areas? Effect on nat’l distributors: they’re driven to the most conservative communities’ standards.
2. In application:
a. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (SCOTUS 1973): Ds owned/operated adult theatres with inoffensive entrances and signs warning those offended by nudity and those under 21.
Civil complaints were filed b/c of the adult movies being shown inside. Ct upheld the injunctions issued against the theatres (by lower cts) and said that a state may prohibit comm’l exhibition of obscene films even to consenting adults, saying that obscene films don’t get const’l immunity from regulation just b/c they’re shown only to consenting adults (didn’t reach the issue of watching obscene movies in the home; said that this was a comm’l venture. State gets deference in its correlation btwn obscenity and quality of life, community environment, and public safety. Ct is wary to say that the Const’n can’t reach activity just b/c it’s between consenting adults.
i. Counterpoint: John Mills (philosopher) said that everyone has a moral right to engage in conduct that doesn’t cause actual harm to someone else. vii. Extension of the doctrine?
1. Obscenity  Violence Analogy:
a. Could argue that regulation of violent expression can be justified (in theory) by arguments similar to those made for suppression/regulation of sexually obscene material
(harmful effects).
b. Ct has distinguished violence from obscenity, saying that logic doesn’t necessarily compel the same results.
c. American Amusement Machine Ass’n v. Kendrick (7th Cir 2001): Ct invalidated an ordinance that regulated minors’ freedom to play video games that appealed predominantly to the morbid interest in violence, are patently offensive, lack serious artistic value for minors, etc. Ct (per POSNER) rejected the analogy to obscenity, saying that the main concern about obscenity is its offensiveness; this statute seeks to regulate based on the idea that video games engender aggressive attitudes and behavior and make children more violent.
2. Obscenity  Child Pornography
a. Question about material depicting children in sexual situations that didn’t fall under the
Miller obscenity standard. We want to regulate them, but how do we justify that?
b. Regulate images depicting child sexual acts (reasoning unclear):
i. New York v. Ferber (SCOTUS 1982): D sold a movie depicting a child engaged in sexual activity to an undercover cop, was arrested and conv’d under child
Page 16 of 31

h.

pornography statute (prohibited any person knowingly to produce/sell material depicting sexual performance by a child). Ct unanimously upheld the conv’n.
Material didn’t fit in the Miller obscenity standard (on a whole, didn’t appeal to the prurient interest in sex, had artistic value, etc.) but it was clearly problematic. Ct had trouble with the explanation; said that D doesn’t have a const’l right to violate a law not itself directed at speech to make his speech more effective. The evil the law was directed at was the harm done to the child himself. But if that’s the case, why punish the producer for making the video and also take the video off the mkt? The problem is different from the concern in obscenity (that communication of these images/messages is valueless and harmful); here, the state’s concern has nothing to do with communication.
1. Note: this could be an incidental effect statute if the state hadn’t also punished distribution of the film.
2. Note: case was confusing b/c it invoked “LVS” analysis but didn’t explain the theory. Most read the case for the proposition that the underlying act is unlawful and depiction of the activity will encourage child sexual abuse, so it’s properly regulated. But this bad tendency test looks like it takes the Ct back to Schenck.
c. Real reason for regulating child sexual depiction:
i. Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition (SCOTUS 2002): Ct invalidated the Child
Porn Prevention Act which extended the prohibition against child porn to sexually explicit images that appear to depict minors, but were produced w/o using real children (computer images or young-looking adults). Ct figured out the real problem with child sexual depiction: the abuse of the actual children used in creating the film/pictures. The state interest is less strong when there are no actual minors to protect
The Lewd, Profane, and Indecent: material that’s disturbing, but not obscene
i. General rule: govn’t can’t shut off speech that may be offensive unless people are truly captive (substantial privacy interest is being invaded in an essentiall intolerable nammer). ii. Profanity/offensive speech/content is not LVS if used in public. Clearly speech-protective approach.
1. It is unconst’l to punish a person for using a profane word in a public place (b/c no captive audience) a. Cohen v. California (SCOTUS 1971): D wore a jacket into a courthouse that said “Fuck the Draft”; he testified that he wore the jacket to inform the public of the depth of his feelings against the war/draft. Ct overturned his conviction, saying that D couldn’t const’lly be punished for using that word in a public place. Ct examined categories of
LVS, eliminating each (obscenity, FW, incitement, etc.), saying that the only issue was whether the govn’t could prevent public use of offensive words to protect the sensibilities of citizens. Ct (per HARLAN) noted that use of profanity isn’t w/o value; it can facilitate the expression of the emotive content of speech; also noted that identifying a class of words that could be prohibited to protect citizens would be impossible. Ct also stated that the state’s interest in protecting the sensibilities of audience members isn’t sufficiently weighty to warrant the restriction of this expression, and that people could turn away.
i. Note: Harlan noted that “words are chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force.” ii. Schroeder: use of offensive language/images should be protected under Cohen, even if very offensive, if they’re being used in a way clearly intended as expression relevant to the 1st A and in a public context.
2. Drive-in movie theatre
a. Erznoznik v. Jacksonville (SCOTUS 1975): Ordinance made it a public nuisance for any drive-in theatre to show bare human body parts (specific ones) if the movie was visible from any public street or place; asserted interest was to protect citizens re: traffic safety
(distracted drivers) and against exposure to potentially offensive images. Ct held the ordinance unconst’l; basically calling the statute overbroad (b/c it sweeps in protected speech); Ct said that no matter how big a screen is, people can avert their eyes (not captive). Ct rejected traffic safety justification as underbroad, treating restrictions on the basis of images projected as a variant of content regulation (not viewpoint, though). Ct also rejects protecting children from sexual images, acknowledging the interest in protecting children but calling the statute overbroad.
i. Dissent (BURGER, REHNQUIST) this was a reasonable judgment by the state.
Page 17 of 31

iii. Profanity + captive audience (that can include children) justifies narrow regulation (LVS?)
1. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (SCOTUS 1978): Radio station broadcast George Carlin monologue
(at 2:00 pm on a Tues) mocking the FCC by using seven words FCC prohibited during hours when children might be listening); man driving with his child heard it, filed a complaint and the FCC issued a declaratory order granting the complaint, saying that a station may not air offensive language at a time when children may be in the audience. Ct upheld the comm’n b/c the regulation was narrow. Said that the prohibition was not directed at particular ideas (not a classic
FOS regulation); issue is analogous to obscenity. Radio invades the privacy of the home unlike
Cohen’s jacket of the drive-in theatre. Adults can get access elsewhere. Regulation was on the form (not content) of speech. “A nuisance may merely be a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of in the barnyard.”
a. Note: does this indicate inflation of protecting children? Is this a reasonable interest?
b. Concurrence (POWELL, BLACKMUN): rejected the idea that profanity has low value, but allowing regulation b/c it’s a channeling effect (adults can listen at different hours, so they’re not totally prevented).
c. Dissent (BRENNAN, MARSHALL): this is governed by Cohen, no fundamental privacy interest in listening to the radio. iv. Indecent expression: when an aff step is req’d to receive a message, that message can’t be regulated.
1. Telephone:
a. Sable Communications, Inc. v. FCC (SCOTUS 1989): Fed’l statute prohibited interstate transmission of “dial-a-porn” svcs. Ct held the statute invalid b/c phone communication requires an aff step to receive the message; state’s interest in protecting children not met.
Pacifica was extremely narrow (it was temporal zoning); govn’t has greater latitude in regulating content (esp on a scarce spectrum) in TV/radio than on the phone.
2. Internet:
a. Reno v. ACLU (SCOTUS 1997): Communications Decency Act of 1996 was designed to protect minors from indecent/offensive communications on the internet and prohibited any person from making any communication which is indecent, knowing that the recipient is under 18 (much broader than obscenity (“indecent”, not “obscene”) and not just “obscene (Miller test) from the standpoint of a minor.” Ct invalidated this part of the statute, distinguishing Pacifica (channeling; adults still have access to the media there); saying that radio/tv are trad’lly regulated, but not the internet, and saying that people have to look for things on the internet (hmm), whereas on radio/tv, they just come across them. There are less restrictive alternatives and such a broad regulation isn’t allowed
(not narrowly tailored).
b. Less restrictive alternative: filters:
i. Ashcroft v. ACLU (SCOTUS 2004): COPA enacted in response to striking down of the CDA; it imposed criminal penalties for knowing posting, for comm’l purposes, of web content that’s “harmful to minors” (Miller test from the standpoint of a minor; NOTE this is not child porn; has nothing to do with involving children in sexual depictions). Required age verification (i.e. by credit card) to access these sites. Ct said that it was OK for the lower court to enjoin enforcement of the act as not the least restrictive alternative b/c of the existence of filters. Ct said that the chilling effect was significant (adults wouldn’t want to access sites b/c of record of identity from req’d CC use).
1. Dissent (BREYER, REHNQUIST, O’CONNOR): Filters aren’t perfect, and of course they’re less restrictive (the status quo is always less restrictive than regulation). ii. Note: two types of filters. White filters allow people to access only preapproved sites (good for really small children), black filters allow access to all sites except those that are blocked in advance.
v. Zoning and Indecency:
1. Deference to city planners/experts: zoning ordinances treated as content-neutral regulations of secondary effects. Regulation is unrelated to the suppression of speech (not communicative impact –John Hart Ely); interest is in suppression of secondary effects associated with the movies/businesses. a. Young v. American Mini-Theatres (SCOTUS 1976): zoning ordinance; no adult theatre near other “regulated uses” (hotels, motels, bars, pool halls, etc.) or near a residential area. Challenged, but upheld by the Ct. Said that this wasn’t regulation on the basis of ideas/POVs, but rather on the sexual explicitness of the movies (Stone doesn’t buy this).
Page 18 of 31

i.

This isn’t a regulation based on the communicative impact of the speech, rather it’s about the effect of the “regulated uses” on the neighborhood.
i. Note: harm is happening in a different dynamic than Schenck and Sullivan; this has nothing to do with whether the distinction is based on content. ii. Souter would say that ordinances like this are ok as long as it can be demonstrated that they have no negative effect on people attending the theatres.
b. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres (SCOTUS 1986): Ordinance prohibited adult movie theatres from locating near residential zone/church/school. Ct upheld the ordinance, saying the case was largely dictated by Young. Content-neutral restrictions are acceptable as long as they’re designed to serve a substantial govn’t interest and they don’t unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication (TPM?). Ct said that empirical studies aren’t req’d, rejected the idea that the ordinance was underinclusive, and rejected alt avenues of communication argument (not much of the town was left open by the ordinance), saying that the 1st A doesn’t require the govn’t to ensure that businesses can obtain sites at bargain costs.
i. Dissent (Brennan): this wasn’t content-neutral; ordinance discriminates against certain forms of speech based on content.
c. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books (SCOTUS 2002): LA conducted a study finding that concentrations of adult entertainment establishments are associated with higher crime. City enacted ordinance prohibiting adult establishments near each other or close to church/school/park, then amended the ordinance to prohibit more than one business in the same building. Ct upheld the ordinance over a book store operator’s challenge that there was no evidence that combining the two activities causes higher crime rates. Ct rev’d judgment for D, saying that ordinances are upheld as long as the city can show that the ordinance was designed to serve a govn’t interest and reasonable alt avenues of communication remain available.
Hate Speech and Pornography
i. Main question: does our uncomfortableness with these types of speech justify regulating them? We must be critical about what we regulate. ii. Hate speech: no COA anymore; lost out in the mktplace of ideas.
1. Arguments for regulating hate speech:
a. Inconsistent w/the values of the Const’n (14th A); this is true only in a very broad sense;
14th A applies only against states, not private actors).
b. Invaluable under 1st A b/c it distorts public debate by silencing others (net negative effect on speech).
c. Simply and factually wrong (all other countries say it’s illegal); suffering by victims
d. Extension of the FW doctrine
2. Arguments against:
a. Hard to make a principled distinction
b. Almost always content based
c. By punishing hate speech, you decrease the punishment of nonracist FWs and speech.
3. Attempted definition (Matsuda): speech degrading to a historically oppressed group, seen as promoting views of inferiority and hatred (not necessarily focusing on alleged statements of fact, rather on trad’l understandings of “hate” expression, incl jokes, caricatures, parodies, statements of prejudice). 4. No COA for group libel (“hate speech”)
a. Early case allowed for a COA for group libel (Ct not particularly protective at that time)
i. Beauharnais v. Illinois (SCOTUS 1952): D distributed a pamphlet that called on whites to prevent “mongralization” of blacks and accused blacks of being bad.
D was prosecuted under a libel law that made unlawful speech claiming depravity or lack of virtue of any race. T.Ct.: no CPD charge, truth wasn’t a defense. Jury conv’d D, SCOTUS aff’d, saying that individual libel is properly punishable, so group libel is, too, if it’s related to a legitimate govn’t purpose.
b. Doe v. Univ of Michigan (E.D. Mich 1989): Ct invalidated (unconst’lly overbroad) a univ regulation that prohibited any person from stigmatizing an individual on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation when the reasonably foreseeable effect would be to interfere w/academic efforts.
5. Once it was clear that generalized hate speech statutes weren’t consistent w/the 1st A, states looked for narrower ways to apply the doctrine (failed)
a. Carving out a subset of FWs
Page 19 of 31

b.

i. RAV v. City of St Paul (SCOTUS 1992): D charged under Bias-Motivated Crime
Ordinance after burning a cross on a black family’s lawn: prdinance prohibits display of burning cross, swastika, or other symbol that one knows/has reason to know arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender. Ct (per SCALIA) said that the statute (even as construed by the Minn S Ct to apply only to a subset of FWs) was unconst’l b/c it was discrimination on the basis of content w/in the category of FWs. No greater-includes-the-lesser right w/in categories of LVS; threaten the mktplace of ideas by carving out a subset of FW.
1. Note: Scalia may have missed a nuance here; not all distinctions w/in a group are equally problematic. There are content-based distinctions, viewpoint-based distinctions, and content-based distinctions that don’t bear on viewpoint at all.
a. e.g., if you could ban all use of loudspeakers after 9 pm
i. (a) ... except on weekends, when you can use them until midnight. No underbreadth problem, everyone is treated the same, obvious line-drawing by state. ii. (b) ... except democrats, who can use them until midnight. Underinclusive b/c the state is choosing to allow democrats more speech than it must.
Viewpoint?
iii. (c) .. except political candidates during a political campaign (for discourse) who can use them until midnight. This isn’t as troubling as (b), but it’s more troubling than (a). Content?
b. Scalia may believe that the RAV category is based on viewpoint, not content, but it seems clearly to be a contentbased categorization.
2. Concurrence (WHITE, BLACKMUN, O’CONNOR): Ordinance was unconst’l b/c words/speech were prohibited even if they merely angered/offended people or hurt their feelings; clearly overbroad b/c it criminalizes protected and unprotected expression (Minn S Ct had failed to narrow the doctrine sufficiently).
Hate speech as true threat (hence unprotected)?
i. Virginia v. Black (SCOTUS 2003): D conv’d under a VA statute that prohibited burning a cross w/intent to intimidate a person or group of persons. Ct held that the state could make “cross burning with intent to intimidate” a crime, but not if the cross burning constituted prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. This allows conv’n w/o proof of the element that makes it const’l for Va to ban cross burning w/intent to intimidate.
1. Note: case involves punishing a person for incitement w/o express incitement (but with intent/meaning to incite from evidence of purpose or circumstantial inference from circumstances), similar to Masses,
Brandenburg, Nuremburg Files. Case was criticized b/c it departed from the theory that speech couldn’t be punished b/c of its contentviewpoint unless it’s expressly in a LVS category.

iii. Hate crimes:
1. Regulation is acceptable b/c the statutes aren’t about speech
2. Hate-speech penalty enhancement const’l; RAV doesn’t impact legislation of crime independent of speech involved.
a. Wisconsin v. Mitchell (SCOTUS 1993): D prosecuted for assault exacerbated by the fact that the motive for the assault was racial hatred. D argued that this violated RAV, saying that this was punishment of a subset of FW based on content; Ct dismissed this argument and held (per Rehnquist) that RAV was distinguishable b/c what was being punished was assault, not speech (the motive, independent of the speech that may be connected w/the assault). i. Note: if this case had come out the other way, it would be hard to sustain any antidiscrimination legislation.

Page 20 of 31

b.

What if a state punished assaults more severely if committed for the purpose of communicating racial/religious hatred? The act of assault would be punished b/c of communicative purpose/effect.

iv. Pornography:
1. Catharine MacKinnon argues for prohibition of pornography; basically a variant of the hate speech issue, arguing that this speech is of low value under the 1st A (similar to Matsuda conception of hate speech).
2. This has been passed over as a subset of obscenity confined in terms of POV. RAV problem.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS:
LIMITATIONS ON THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
AND THE PROBLEM OF CONTENT-NEUTRALITY
I.

II.

General Principles
a. Restrictions that apply w/o regard to the content of the message conveyed. These laws are neutral on their face, but not always neutral in effect, so they’re not immune from 1st A review.
i. TPM restrictions:
1. Permissible if they restrict only the TPM of expression/speech (and don’t restrict ideas), leave open ample alternative avenues of communication. ii. i.e. no person may erect a billboard more than 10’ wide and 20’ high. This is content-neutral. iii. i.e. no billboards except .............. this may be content-based.
b. Review of content-neutral regulations: ten factors to consider: we like to handle things by presumptions rather than by ad hoc balancing; Ct tries to divide content-neutral problems into separate categories.
i. (1) Total impact on speech (i.e. nobody may speak vs. nobody may erect billboards)
1. Ct in Schneider v. State (SCOTUS 1939) held that a municipality may not prohibit any/all distribution of printed material in public places, reasoning that municipalities may adopt regulations to promote public safety, health, welfare, and convenience, but can’t abridge the right of speech. If the objective is to keep streets clean, the city may punish those who litter. ii. (2) Availability of alternative means of speech (shifting to other means of expression to reduce effect)
1. Flat bans not allowed (Schneider). iii. (3) Strength of the state interest (Compelling? Substantial? Legitimate?)
1. NAACP v. Alabama (SCOTUS 1958): NAACP was engaged in controversial activities and there was lots of retaliation against members; State AG sought records, incl membership lists, and
NAACP was fined for contempt for refusing to turn them over. Ct held that a state may not force production of a private ass’ns membership lists b/c doing so would be a restraint on NAACP members right to freedom of ass’n; stated showed no controlling justification, so not allowed. iv. (4) Whether less restrictive alternatives of achieving goals exist
v. (5) Tradition (forms of speech we’ve long accommodated get greater respect/deference) vi. (6) Disproportionate impact (on some speakers but not others)
1. Martin v. City of Struthers (SCOTUS 1943): Jehova’s witness conv’d of violating an ordinance that prohibited people from soliciting (summoning occupants of a residence to distribute handbills); Ct held that the govn’t may not impose a criminal sanction for door-to-door distribution of handbills b/c this is essential to poorly financed causes.
2. City of Ladue v. Gilleo (SCOTUS 1994): ordinance banned all residential signs but those faling w/in an exemption; homeowner sued and Ct held that a city may not ban homeowners from displaying signs on their prop’ty b/c residential signs are an important means of communication and may be the only practical means for persons of modest means to communicate. vii. (7) Direct or incidental regulation of speech viii. (8) Whether govn’t prop’ty is involved ix. (9) Whether someone else’s private prop’ty is involved: incl intrusive speech/unwilling listener
1. Kovacs v. Cooper (SCOTUS 1949): D was conv’d of a violation of an ordinance prohibiting use of sound trucks/amplifiers used to produce loud/raucous noises on public streets. Ct conv’d his conv’n, holding that the ordinance didn’t restrict communication of the same ideas by other means, and the need for reasonable protection of homes/businesses from distracting noise justified the ordinance.
x. (10) Motivation (govn’ts motivation suspect?)
The Public Forum: Speech on Public Property

Page 21 of 31

a.

b.

c.

Intro: there are three categories of speech re: public forum. (1) Trad’l public forum (limited to streets/parks/ sidewalks); (2) Nonpublic forum (govn’t can regulate). Later: (3) Opened public forum (where govn’t has allowed speech, a nonforum may be treated the same as a public forum.
(1) The Public Forum: Streets/Parks/Sidewalks (SPS)
i. Sunstein: goals of the public forum doctrine: (a) ensures that speakers can have access to a wide array of listeners; (b) allows speakers to access specific people/institutions with whom they have a complaint; (c) increases likelihood that people will be exposed to a wide variety of speakers/views. ii. Govn’t is owner of prop’ty and may act like any other prop’ty owner in excluding speech (old view)
1. Commonwealth v. Davis (SCOTUS 1895). D wanted to speak on the Boston Common but was arrested for trespassing (city regulation). Holmes (on Sup Jud’l Ct of Mass) aff’d conviction
(SCOTUS aff’d), saying that the state has discretion over public use of its prop’ty like a pvt landowner. iii. Rationale for the right to the public forum. Test: a state may not block expression in SPS, it can regulate to accommodate legitimate state interests but it can’t unduly regulate in a way to make these fora unavailable.
1. Hague v. Cio (SCOTUS 1939): Dictum (per ROBERTS): “wherever title of streets or parks may vest, they have immemorially been held in trust for use of the public and time out of mind have been used for assembly, communicating thoughts ... such use of the streets and parks has been, since ancient times, part of the privileges/immunities of citizens” and said that the right may not be abridged or denied. Framed the question based on CL principles of adverse poss’n and public trust a. Note: Ct has built on Hague dictum and created a speech protective approach to ensuring access as a 1st A right to streets, parks, and sidewalks (SPS). It’s a balancing test with a thumb on the side of the speaker. A state may not block expression unless it can pass a high hurdle and the regulations are reasonable.
2. US v. Grace (SCOTUS 1983): Ct invalidated a fed’l statute prohibiting any person to display on public sidewalks around the S.Ct. building flags/banners/anything designed to promote a party, organization, movement, reasoning that public sidewalks are public fora, and the govn’t may enforce reasonable TPM restrictions, but they must be content neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant govn’t interest (and leave open ample alt channels).
3. Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad (SCOTUS 1975): P applied for permission to present a musical at a municipal theatre; it was rejected b/c the musical contains “obscenity.” Ct said that the denial of permission was an unconst’l prior restraint b/c the municipal theatre is a public forum. iv. Reasonable regulation in public fora allowed:
1. Rockford: city can ban noisy demonstrations near school while school is in session (even when demonstrations take place on sidewalks).
2. Frisbee v. Schultz: ct upheld restriction on persistent residential picketing of a person’s home on the ground that, although some picketing is appropriate, when it gets to the point of harassment, a state can legitimately protect individuals who are residents of the area.
3. Abortion Clinics: people can protest near abortion clinics, but not in a way that physically interferes w/access.
Other Publicly Owned Property
i. (2) Non (public) fora; publicly-owned land/prop’ty that’s not SPS: by being so clear about SPS, other public prop’ty (by negative implication) isn’t as protected.
1. Basic rule: as long as the state acts neutrally re: preventing access, there is no universal right to use public prop’ty other than SPS for speech purposes.
a. i.e. state fair in Heffron, open military base in Greer v. Spock, mailboxes in USPS v. council for Greenburgh Postal Ass’ns, signs on utility poles in LA v. Taxpayers for
Vincent, and airport terminals in Lee, billboards in govn’t buildings, etc.
b. Adderly v. Florida (SCOTUS 1966): students marched to the jail to protest arrest of civil rights demonstrators’ arrests the day before; they were peaceful and moved when they were told they were blocking the entrance. Sherriff then arrested them and they were conv’d of violating a Fla statute that made trespass on prop’ty committed with malicious and mischevious intent illegal. Ct aff’d the conv’ns, saying that there was no evidence that the sheriff removed the protestors b/c of the content of their communication. Said that the sheriff isn’t prevented from even-handed enforcement of the general trespass statute). i. Dissent (Douglas, Brennan, Fortas, CJ): jailhouse is an obvious center for protest; have to protect the rights of demonstrators.
Page 22 of 31

2.

d.

Post-Hague, three approaches emerged re: an individual’s right to demand access to public prop’ty other than SPS for speech purposes.
a. BLACK in Adderly: govn’t, just like owner of pvt prop’ty, has a right to control prop’ty and limit its use to purposes for which it is properly dedicated.
i. Black was the most aggressive proponent of FOS (absolutist) so he had to limit things more than if he had a more flexible view of the 1st A.
b. REHNQUIST in Lee, etc.: if govn’t prop’ty isn’t a public forum, a ban on speech activities is permissible as long as it’s content neutral and not unreasonable. This is highly deferential standard.
i. Lee (airport terminals): D wanted to hand out leaflets in violation of ordinance that prohibited doing so in airport terminals. Ct said that terminals aren’t SPS and the purpose is different from the downtown area.
c. BRENNAN/MARSHALL in Greynam: critical question is whether the manner of expression is incompatible with the normal activity in a particular place at a particular time; this is an open-ended balancing judgment that doesn’t distinguish btwn public forum and nonpublic forum. ii. (3) Designated public forum
1. Int’l Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee (SCOTUS 1992) (nonpublic forum): Krishnas go to public places, disseminate religious literature, and solicit funds; they challenged a regulation that prohibited this type of activity w/in interior areas of airport buildings (but allowed it on surrounding sidewalks). Ct held that an airport terminal (even if operated by a public authority) may prohibit solicitation in the interior of its buildings, reasoning that the govn’t need not permit all forms of speech on all prop’ty it owns/controls.
a. Ct distinguished btwn three categories of govn’t prop’ty
i. (1) trad’l public forum (SPS); can be regulated only if it can pass SS; ii. (2) designated public forum: prop’ty that the govn’t has opened for expressive activity by aprt/all of the public; regulation of speech on this type of prop’ty only if it can pass SS; iii. (3) nonpublic forum: all remaining public prop’ty; regulation of speech survives if it’s reasonable, as long as the regulation isn’t an effort to suppress the speakers’ activity b/c of disagreement w/their views. This is where the airport falls, and b/c these regulations were reasonable, they’re acceptable.
2. Perry (SCOTUS 1983) (nonpublic forum): rival unions; the nonofficial one sued to challenge a rule that only the designated teachers’ union could put materials in school mailboxes. Ct held that the mailboxes weren’t opened up for speech to a degree that it would create the equivalent of an
SPS forum. B/c the mailboxes were nonpublic fora, even if the govn’t was to allow some speech based on content, it wouldn’t have to open the forum up to all other speech. As long as there’s a reasonable basis for limiting speech and that limitation is not based on viewpoint, it’s ok.
Content-based restrictions: more difficult question:
i. Typical situation: govn’t can disallow speech, but chooses to allow some speakers to communicate on the prop’ty. Question is when the decision to allow some speakers to use the prop’ty creates a right on the part of others to do the same even though they wouldn’t have had a right if the state had enacted a total ban.
1. Note: speakers’ claims here are underinclusiveness claims.
2. General rule: content-based restrictions are OK as long as there’s a reasonable basis. Viewpointbased restrictions are per se unconst’l. ii. Public forum:
1. Police Dept of Chicago v. Mosley (SCOTUS 1972): Ordinance said that nobody could demonstrate near a school except for labor picketers; Ct held it was unconst’l as applied to Mosley, who wanted to picket peacefully but not about labor (even though total ban on all picketing would be ok under Rockford). Ct said that the ordinance invalidates certain picketing on the basis of subject matter while permitting other picketing in the same TPM. To pass this, the state would have to show that the regulation is narrowly tailored to a legitimate objective. iii. Designated public forum:
1. Windmar (aff’ing Mosley): U of Mo policy allowed students to use univ facilities for meeting in nonclass hours but prohibited use of its facility for meetings for religious purposes. Assume that school could use classrooms only for teaching. This is clearly based on content, and the Univ didn’t have a good enough reason to justify the differential treatment.
2. Lamb’s Chapel v. Moriches Union Free School District : School prop’ty was a limited public forum when a rule permitted after school social, civic, and recreational uses of prop’ty, prohibiting the use of such prop’ty for religious purposes. Rule was unconst’l b/c not content-neutral.
Page 23 of 31

3.

e.

f.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the UVA (SCOTUS 1995) School fund paying out to student publications is a limited forum. Univ policy authorized payment from student activities fund for printing costs of a variety of publications, but prohibited payment for any student publication that promoted a particular religion. Ct held that the policy was invalid, saying the school was a
“metaphysical” forum (not a trad’l public forum). Court held this was a limited public forum (not trad’l), state still couldn’t make viewpoint-based regulations. Note: clear viewpoint-based effects.
a. Good News Club v. Milford Central School (SCOTUS 2001): School policy that authorized residents to use school buildings for stuff after school as long as their purposes weren’t religious held unconst’l as viewpoint-based discrimination in a limited public forum. iv. Nonpublic forum:
1. Rational regulations (even when based on content) allowed:
a. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights: city rapid transit system vehicles had space to be used for signs (bus isn’t SPS); a content-neutral rule that disallowed all signs would have been ok under Greer and Spock; the Ct allowed regular comm’l ads but not political ads.
Candidate filed suit. Ct rejected his claim, distinguishing it from Mosley b/c there was no public forum. Ct held that there was a reasonable justification for the city’s decision
(political ads are more upsetting, and if there was an excess demand over supply, the city didn’t want to have to decide which candidates would get to advertise and which wouldn’t. Viewpoint-based effects don’t invalidate statutes (or make them viewpoint-based)
i. Reagan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (SCOTUS 1983): IRC had a regulation that said no lobbying by not-for-profit groups (except veterans’ groups); problem is that those groups have predictable views. Ct upheld regulation as not viewpoint-based despite possible viewpoint-based effects.
1. Note: can’t invalidate statutes based on potential effects quite so lightly. See O’Brien, infra. ii. Arkansas Educational Television Comm’n v. Forbes (SCOTUS 1998): Ark Educational Television Comm’r
(state-owned public TV broadcaster) sponsored a debate btwn major party candidates for a congr’l seat.
Forbes requested to participate, was denied, and sued. Ct held that selective access didn’t create a public forum requiring SS and applied standard for exclusions from a nonpublic forum, concluding that the decision to exclude Forbes was const’lly permissible b/c it wasn’t based on his viewpoint. iii. Only type of statute that should be invalidated on this premise; one where viewpoint is so closely tied (i.e. rule that nobody who has been a member of the Communist Party may work for Congress.
Govn’t Subsidies and Tax Expenditures
i. Intro:
1. Start with the premise that the govn’t can’t engage in viewpoint discrimination; 1st A gives the govn’t a right to speak
2. Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine: the govn’t may not condition the availability of a benefit on the recipient’s forfeiture of a const’l right. ii. Govn’t can make decisions of fed’l spending (tax subsidy) based on permissible, reasonable distinctions btwn groups:
1. Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington (1983): Ct upheld a fed’l statute providing that contributions to an otherwise tax-exempt organization wouldn’t be tax deductible if a substantial part of the organization’s activities consisted of attempts to influence legislation
(except veterans’ orgs). This was basically a spending statute b/c it created a tax subsidy
(everyone had to pay taxes on contributions except lobbying groups that happen to be veterans’ organizations. There is no const’l right to get money, but once the govn’t uses its spending power, it can’t use it to suppress speech iii. Govn’t may condition acceptance of fed’l funds by a particular project on the project’s agreement to promote certain positions/views:
1. Rust v. Sullivan (SCOTUS 1991): Govn’t can selectively use fed’l funding to encourage certain activities it believes are in the public interest. Title X of the Public Health Svc Act said that none of the fed’l funds appropriated under the act for family planning svcs could be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning (this included counseling patients about abortion as a family planning mechanism). Court upheld the regulations, saying that the govn’t can make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion and implement that judgment by the allocation of fed’l funds (selective funding to encourage certain activities the legislature believes are in the public interest. Dissent noted that this was viewpoint-based suppression of speech.
a. Note: Maher v. Roe and Harris v. McRae: the govn’t is entitled to fund childbirth but not abortions, notwithstanding the rights in Roe: there’s no aff right to have the decision to terminate pregnancy funded by the govn’t.
Page 24 of 31

2.

3.

4.

III.

Going beyond Rust: Govn’t can use funding to regulate litigation (speech of pvt citizens)
a. Legal Svcs Corp’n v. Velasquez (2001): Congress established LSC to distribute funds
(Congress appropriated them) to eligible local organizations to provide financial support for legal assistance in noncriminal proceedings. Congress imposed a restriction prohibiting LSC-funded attys from challenging the legality or constitutionality of existing welfare laws. Court invalidated the restriction, saying that viewpoint-based restrictions aren’t proper when the govn’t speaks, and they’re also not proper when the govn’t promotes a message using funds (through private speakers).
i. Dissent (SCALIA): the LSF is a fed’l subsidy program, not a fed’l regulatory program (which restricts speech); the act doesn’t restrict speech or discriminate on the basis of viewpoint b/c it funds neither challenges to nor defenses of existing welfare law.
Art: Congress may add considerations to an artistic grant-making decision process as long as they’re not viewpoint-based.
a. National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (SCOTUS 1998): Congress enacted a statute directing the NEA to establish procedures to judge the artistic merit of those who applied for grants, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse values and beliefs of the general public. NEA responded by saying all it had to do was make sure its peer review panels were diverse. Court held that the statute wasn’t unconst’l on its face (wasn’t viewpoint-based discrimination) b/c it merely adds considerations to the grant-making process (susceptible to multiple interpretations).
When Congress grants fed’l funds, it can insist that the funds be spent for the purposes for which they’re authorized (incl by requiring filters in govn’t funded libraries.
a. U.S. v. American Library Ass’n (SCOTUS 2003): Children’s Internet Porn Act (CIPA) forbids public libraries from receiving fed’l funds to expand their internet access until they install filtering/blocking software. Libraries, patrons, and website publishers brought suit challenging the filtering provisions. ALA’s argument was that Congress was using its spending power to deny access to protected speech (b/c most of what gets blocked is protected). Ct said that the filtering provisions of the CIPA were const’l b/c it allows libraries to take certain appropriate sites off the block list. Libraries have some control (i.e. over the books they stock); all Congress was doing was helping the libraries exercise the discretionary/editorial control they always have had. There is no unconst’l conditions issue b/c when the govn’t appropriates public funds to a program, it has the right to define the limits of that program.

Symbolic Conduct
a. Acts prohibited b/c of communicative impact implicate the 1st A. To the extent that a law proscribes conduct b/c of its message/communicative impact, we analyze it the same way as if the govn’t was prohibiting conventional speech b/c of its message.
i. Law that says “no urinating on a public building” is OK. Law that says “no urinating on a public building as an expression of opposition to public policy” implicates speech concerns (not content-neutral); treated like any content-based regulation. ii. Court is reluctant to invalidate a law that’s not on its face expressly directed at expression but that’s violated by a person in order to express himself through symbolic means.
b. Laws with incidental effects on speech are (highly) presumptively const’l.
i. United States v. O’Brien (SCOTUS 1968) D (and others) burned selective service registration certificates at a Boston courthouse; crowd gathered, and after the burning, the men were arrested for violating the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, which made it illegal to “willfully and knowingly mutilate, destroy, and change by burning a registration certificate.” Ct upheld the convictions, saying that
Ds weren’t engaging in protected 1st A speech.
1. Test: Regulation of conduct that has an incidental effect on speech is OK if (1) state interest is w/in the govn’ts power (and is legitimate); (2) regulation furthers a substantial govn’t interest
(implies an intermediate test); (3) interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and
(4) the incidental restriction on 1st A freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Note: deferential test!
a. Applying the test: (1) is met; raising/supporting armies; (2) is met by deference; (3) is met b/c the govn’t interest is unrelated to suppressing free expression; the interest is in preventing people from burning draftcards; (4) is met b/c the court can’t perceive lessrestrictive alternative means.

Page 25 of 31

2.

IV.

Note: Ct doesn’t discuss the power of draft burning as a form of expression. The means of expression here are more powerful than most forms of symbolic expression . Ct won’t strike down an otherwise const’l statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.
a. The statute was enacted after draft card burning became a popular way of expressing opposition to the draft. If the statute had been drafted specifically to prohibit card burning as speech, it would be unconst’l; instead, the purpose of the law was to punish people who were criticizing the govn’t.
i. Why the Ct doesn’t question legislative motive:
1. Wisdom of pointing the finger at a coordinate branch? Too blunt.
2. Futility: if the Ct invalidates a law b/c of motive, the legislature just reenacts the law and, in the future, makes that evidence unavailable.
3. Ascertainability: hard to determine motivation of a multimember body. ii. Flag burning/desecrating statutes:
1. State can punish someone for burning a flag based on a no open fires statute (incidental effect) b/c prohibiting burning fires is unrelated to free expression.
a. If a law against open fires is a legitimate state interest, we might conclude that D can be punished even for her communicative flag burning.
2. Statute prohibiting flag desecration w/the intent of disparaging the US? This is symbolic conduct, but it’s being regulated under a law directly intending to regulate communication.
a. Ct strikes down these statutes, saying that even though the effect on free speech sin’t that big a deal (other ways to communicate) and even though govn’t interests are emotionally powerful, the govn’t can’t regulate the communicative element of this (similar to seditious libel).
3. Statute prohibiting desecration of the flag in general (idea is to get at the same thing as 2); written to attempt to prohibit physical impairment of the flag w/o regard to why the impairment was undertaken. a. Ct saw through/invalidated these statutes; didn’t literally accuse the legislature of being disingenuous, but basically refused to accept the characterization of the law as not being designed to prevent desecration. iii. Nude dancing:
1. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (SCOTUS 1991): Ct upheld a law prohibiting public nudity as applied to nude dancers (required pasties and g-strings); Ct held that a state may prohibit public nudity, even if it includes nude dancing, b/c nude dancing is expressive conduct. Under O’Brien, the statute is justified despite its incidental limitations on some expressive activity (statute furthers substantial govn’t interests in protecting societal order and morality (w/in police power)).
a. Concurrence (WHITE): dancing embodies expression and communication of art/emotions; state interest isn’t sufficient to ban so much expressive activity.
2. City of Erie v. Pap’s AM (SCOTUS 2000): Ct upheld ban on public nudity w/intent of preventing harmful secondary effects; didn’t inquire into whether the legislature’s motives were illicit. iv. Circumstances in which incidental effect is sufficient serious to invalidate specific application: (rare)
1. NAACP v. Alabama: Ct invalidated an incidental effect law b/c of major chilling effect on members of the organization (law would have req’d the NAACP to turn over its membership list to the AG of the state). Even though the impact was incidental, it would have hit the organization so severely that only a compelling state interest could justify the application.
2. Boy Scouts v. Dale (infra).
Regulation of Political Solicitation, Contribution, Expenditure, and Activity
a. Congress has the const’l power to regulate fed’l elections, but it can’t unreasonably interfere w/1st A freedoms when it does so.
b. Congress may limit the amount individuals may contribute to fed’l political campaigns, but it may not limit candidate expenditures
i. Buckley v. Valeo (SCOTUS 1976): Candidates/groups brought suit against fed’l off’ls seeking a declaration that the requirements of FECA were unconst’l; they limited contributions to $1000 to each candidate and expenditures to $1000 (to a clearly ID’d candidate). Ct first held that campaign contributions are “speech”
(b/c it’s symbolic action that communicates support to campaign/others, and contributions enable the candidate to speak more than he/she otherwise could) and then balanced the govn’ts interest against the effect on speech. Ct held that the contribution limits were acceptable b/c the $1000 limit had a minimal effect on speech (people can still help candidates in many other ways). Since the restriction on speech was minimal, the govn’ts legitimate interest (may not be “compelling”) was sufficient (getting rid of corruption and the appearance of it). Expenditure limitations were a serious burden on speech b/c they limited people from spending more than a certain amount on a candidate at all – this is a sharp limitation on participation,
Page 26 of 31

V.

and the state limitation wasn’t legitimate here; said that the govn’t can’t silence some people to enhance the speech of others (equality argument); said that there are other ways to deal with corruption.
1. Note: has been criticized from both sides; Ct “split the baby” in dividing campaign and expenditure limits.
2. Post-Buckley, we were left w/a statutory framework that nobody intended/enacted. Political groups tried to maximize their own self interest in the Buckley environment.
a. People gave money to the nat’l party which would then spend the money to support the election of its candidates (soft money); Congress tried to close this loophole in BCRA.
c. Limits on corp’te expenditures/contributions:
i. Restrictions on corp’ns expenditures to express views on referendum proposals unconst’l (ID of speaker doesn’t matter, rather the content of the speech.
1. First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Belotti (SCOTUS 1978): Mass crim statute prohibited expenditures by banks/businesses for purpose of influencing the vote on referendum proposals unless they materially affected the business/assets of the corp’n. P bank wanted to publicize its opposition to a state const’l amendment authorizing a graduated personal income tax and sought declaratory relief against enforcement of the judgment. Ct held that a state may not limit a corp’ns right of free speech to expression about issues materially affecting the corp’ns business, prop’ty, or assets.
This type of speech is at the heart of 1st A protection. Govn’t interest in protecting the rights of shareholders whose views differ from the corp’ns, but statute isn’t carefully written to deal w/this concern. a. Note: main issue is that corp’ns are creatures of the state that get certain benefits from incorp’n; Ct rejected this argument saying that the ID of the speaker doesn’t matter, rather it’s the value of ths epeech. ii. Contributions from corp’te treasury may properly be restricted: corp’ns can contribute from PACs.
1. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Mich campaign finance act prohibited corp’ns from making contributions/expenditures in connection with state election candidates. There was an exception for expenditures made from a separated fund created with donations outside of its treasury. Ct upheld the provision, saying that P’s status as a corp’n doesn’t remove its use of funds to support a political candidate from 1st A protection; but it is true that state-conferred advantages make it possible for a corp’n to attract capital for reasons unrelated to support for political ideas. Ct applied SS b/c the law was precisely targeted to eliminate the distortion caused by corp’te spending while also allowing corp’ns to express their political views, so it was sufficiently narrow. iii. Restrictions on soft money solicitation/spending OK, accepting an expanded definition of electioneering communication. 1. McConnell v. FEC (SCOTUS 2004): Lawsuits challenged new campaign finance act (BCRA); Ct upheld soft money restriction (b/c coupled with increases in hard money) and new definition of electioneering communication.
d. Regulating the political activities of public employees:
i. Political participation may be properly restricted:
1. US Civil Svc Comm’n v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers (SCOTUS 1973): Ct upheld the Hatch Act, which prohibited fed’l employees from taking an active part in political campaigns/management, saying that Congress decided that, for the govn’t to operate fairly, fed’l employees should be neutral. ii. Teachers may not be dismissed for criticizing bd of ed policy:
1. Pickering v. Bd of Ed (SCOTUS 1968): Teacher was dismissed by the bd of ed for sending a letter to a local newspaper re: proposed tax increase (letter was critical of the bd and superintendent); Ct held that the teacher’s FOS was violated, balancing the teacher’s interests (as a citizen commenting on a matter of public concern) and the state (as employer; interest in promoting efficiency) and held that the teacher must be free to speak w/o being dismissed. iii. Judges may not be prohibited from announcing their views on disputed legal issues
1. Rep Party of Minn v. White (SCOTUS 2002): Ct struck down Minn prohibition against jud’l candidates announcing views on disputed legal issues that might come before them as judges. Ct held that the prov’n prohibited speech based on content and also burdened a category of speech at the core of 1st A freedoms (speech re: qualifications for public office); thus, statute must pass SS
(interests: preserving impartiality of state judiciary; but this is impossible unless judges have no view about the law)); openmindedness is key.
Litigation, Association, and the Right Not to Speak (Other Means of Expression)
a. Litigation: (close to core speech)
i. States can’t restrict the rights of minority groups to obtain better legal service:
Page 27 of 31

1.

b.

NAACP v. Button (SCOTUS 1963): NAACP allowed its lawyers to represent people in cases involving racial discrimination, receiving compensation from NAACP only on a low per-diem basis. Va passed a law forbidding any agent for an individual or organization from retaining a lawyer in connection w/an action to which it wasn’t a party and had no pecuniary right or liability.
NAACP challenged the constitutionality of the award. As applied to the NAACP, ct said that the statute was unconst’l. Va has a legitimate interest in regulating solicitation. The law violates the const’l right of the NAACP since the application of a “label” was being used to suppress the rights of the NAACP to institute litigation on behalf of members of an unpopular minority group. ii. Solicitation:
1. States can’t prevent attorneys for whom litigation is a form of expression from speaking to clients:
a. In re Primus (SCOTUS 1978): ACLU cooperating lawyer wrote a letter to a woman who had been sterilized, allegedly as a condition of her continued receipt of Medicaid benefits, offering her free legal representation in a proposed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the alleged program. Disciplinary board of the S.C. Sup. Ct. reprimanded him for violating a discriplinary rule prohibiting a lawyer who has given unsolicited advice to a layman that he should take legal action to accept employment resulting from that advice; Ct held the reprimand unconst’l b/c for the ACLU, litigation is a form of political expression/ass’n; there was no evidence of undue influence, overreaching, misrepresentation, or invasion of privacy.
2. When litigation is not First Amendment speech, solicitation can be regulated:
a. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n (SCOTUS 1978): atty learned about a car accident, contacted two injured women and arranged to represent them in subsequent litigation; he was suspended by the Ohio State Bar for violation of a disciplinary rule; Ct upheld the suspension as const’l b/c the approach didn’t involve political expression or an exercise of associational freedom to secure const’lly guaranteed civil rights.
Association:
i. Application of nondiscrimination policies doesn’t generally violate freedom of association, despite the fact that the 1st A freedom to associate contains a correlative right not to associate.
1. Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (SCOTUS 1984): D is a nonprofit membership corp’n that provides young men with an opp’ty for personal development and achievement and to learn about/participate in the community. Minn. Dept of Human Resources found that the membership policy (limiting regular membership to men) violated the Minn. Human Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination based on sex). Ct held that a nondiscrimination policy based on gender doesn’t violate an ass’ns right to freedom of association. Said that the right to expressive ass’n isn’t absolute, and Minn had a compelling interest in eradicating discrimination against women (this justifies the impact it has on D organization).
2. Bd of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte (SCOTUS 1987): Ct unanimously upheld application of CA antidiscrimination statute that req’d the Rotary Club to relate women, saying that although the 1st A right to associate ii. Expressive association: an organization that engages in expressive association has a right not to include an unwanted person who affects their ability to advocate the group’s public and private viewpoints. A law that forces an expressive organization to include such a person is unconstitutional.
1. We can’t force all organizations to admit all people
a. i.e. forcing Nazis to admit anti-Nazis, or Jews.
2. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (SCOTUS 2000): BSA removed Dale as an adult scoutmaster when they learned he was gay and a gay rights activist. The NJ public accommodations law prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and they used that to challenge the action. Court held that the BSA was an expressive organization, the forced inclusion of Dale affected its ability to advocate its public and private viewpoints (b/c it teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight and doesn’t promote homosexual conduct). Ct said that since the
NJ law’s application to the BSA would violate the BSA’s freedom of expressive association, it was unconst’l as applied to them.
a. Dissent (STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER): the law doesn’t violate a group’s right to associate just b/c the law conflicts w/the group’s exclusionary membership policy (see
Roberts v. Jaycees); right to discriminate at will isn’t protected by the const’n. Boy
Scouts aren’t a political organization dedicated to a core ideological mission: they’re more like a social group than a political party.
3. Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R. (SCOTUS 2006): Ct held that law schools are expressive organizations, but their right of expressive ass’n isn’t undermined by the Solomon Amendment. Dale was about compelled minority membership in leadership positions; Law schools only have to allow military
Page 28 of 31

recruiters on campus. Nothing about the Solomon Amendment makes it unattractive to be at a law school. The compelled association is peripheral, and Ct says that, w/r/t the symbolic expression argument, it’s like O’Brien (has nothing to do with speech, it’s about access to the military. iii. Compelled Association/Affirmation and the Right Not to Speak:
1. The Pledge of Allegiance:
a. W. Va. State Bd of Ed v. Barnette (SCOTUS 1943): Ct overruled an earlier case which had held that a state law requiring all children in public school to pledge allegiance to the flag was unconst’l. Ct said that it’s not compulsory.
2. Citizens don’t have to be a mouthpiece for the state’s message:
a. Wooley v. Maynard (SCOTUS 1977): State couldn’t criminally punish people who cover up “Live Free or Die” on their license plates; people can’t be forced, as part of their daily lives, to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological POV they find unacceptable. b. Pruneyard (SCOTUS 1980): Privately owned shopping center prohibited visitors from engaging in publicly expressive activity; Ct rejected the owners’ claim that they had a right “not to be forced by the State to use their prop’ty as a forum for the speech of others,” saying that the shopping center is a business establishment open to the public, and this doesn’t require any affirmation of belief in any POV.
3. Student activity fees:
a. Bd of Regents of the U of Wisc System v. Southworth (SCOTUS 2000): Ct upheld UW’s requirement that all FT students pay an annual student activities fee, part of which is allocated to support registered student organizations that engage in expressive/other activities (students challenged based on right not to speak).

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
I.
II.

III.

“Press” is mentioned separately in the 1st A; is this unnecessary/redundant?
Right to “Gather” News: Does the Press have Special Rights?
a. Two types of arguments for differential treatment (under O’Brien)
i. (1) The press is different: this is an appropriate model for dealing with free speech claims; incidental effects are different for the press than for individuals. Definitional problems. ii. (2) The effect of the laws is different on the press (like Dale, NAACP v. Alabama).
b. No special status for the press:
i. First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Blotti: Ct said the Press Clause doesn’t confer special status/immunity on the press; there’s no difference in the 1st A freedom to disseminate ideas through the newspaper vs regular speech. c. No testimonial privilege for reporters:
i. Branzburg v. Hayes (SCOTUS 1972): D reporter observed illegal drug transactions and featured them in a news article; as a result he was subpoenaed to appear before a GJ; he sought prohibition and mandamus to avoid having to reveal his confidential information, but the Ct denied his petition, saying that there is no privilege on the part of the reporter to w/hold information about the IDs of confidential sources. All citizens have an obligation to respond to a GJ subpoena and answer questions relevant to crime investigation. 1. Note: case caused some controversy b/c Powell’s concurrence (deciding 5th vote) didn’t go along with the majority opinion (could be read as flatly inconsistent); some Cts have read his opinion as the deciding fifth vote (and, as a result, controlling); but the maj is the statement of the law. ii. State statutes: 49 states/DC have adopted forms of journalist privilege (either as CL or statutory).
1. Two types:
a. Qualified: reporter can preserve confidentiality unless the govn’t (or pvt party in a civil case) can prove that there’s a substantial justification for overriding the privilege.
b. Absolute: govn’t can’t override the privilege by showing need.
2. To what extent can the state decide the definitional issue (who is the press)?
Differential Treatment of the Press
a. Press doesn’t get/require more access than the general citizenry:
i. Pell v. Procunier (SCOTUS 1974): Ct held that prof’l journalists don’t have a right to conduct face-to-face interviews with prison inmates; govn’t can’t interfere with the press, but it doesn’t have to give them special access to info that’s not available to the gen’l public. ii. We can use the O’Brien model to analyze this. Under this analysis, the press always loses (involves definitional issues)
b. Access to criminal trials (granted to press and public to avoid definitional problems)
Page 29 of 31

IV.

i. Richmond Newspapers v. VA (SCOTUS 1980): Ct closed a criminal trial, excluding everyone from the hearing (press and individuals). Reporters appealed; Ct said that the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed by the Const’n; 1st A protected speech/press incl expression re: events at trial.
1. Concurrence (Brennan, Marshall): publicity is one way to assure the right to a fair trial. ii. Extension to deportation hearings?
1. 3d and 6th Cir split; 3d Cir said they’re different from criminal trials, not trad’lly open to the public, and the govn’ts interest in nat’l security justifies closing proceedings. 6th Cir said that there’s a trad’n of openness in deportation proceedings; rejected govn’ts argument that, although access to one hearing wouldn’t be bad, terrorists could gather access from attending many hearings and figure out how we ID terrorists.
2. Access to criminal trials has been limited; just like public forum SPS. iii. State can’t close criminal trials, even in limited/special circumstances, unless it can pass SS
1. Globe Newspapers v. Superior Court (SCOTUS 1982): State law req’d judges to exclude the gen’l public from the courtroom during the testimony of minor victims of sex crimes; newspaper sued,
Ct said that the state couldn’t require closure of criminal trials b/c of historic openness and the importance of the right of access to the proper functioning of the system. State may limit access to inhibit disclosure if denial is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest (mandatory closure rule was too broad; determination must be made on a case-by-case basis).
c. State can’t tax the press:
i. Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Minn Comm’r of Revenue (SCOTUS 1983): Minn imposed a “related use tax” on the cost of ink/paper for large volume newspapers. Larger newspaper that ended up paying a disproportionate amount of tax sued; Ct said that the govn’t may not single out the press for differential tax treatment, even w/o invidious/censorial motive. Differential treatment of the press is unconst’l and suggests suppression of expression. State had no adequate justification for the tax. ii. Miami Herald Publishing Co v Tornillo (SCOTUS 1974): State couldn’t enforce a “right of reply” statute against a newspaper (for benefit of candidate) b/c it was like a tax on the space the candidate’s reply would take up in the newspaper.
Regulating the Press to “Improve” the Marketplace of Ideas
a. Access to the mass media: initially, there was a “limited spectrum” (only so many radio stations/tv channels/space in newspapers) i. Limited space in newspaper:
1. Miami Herald Publishing Co v. Tornillo (SCOTUS 1974): P was a candidate for Fla state legislature, P newspaper published critical editorials, and P sued to force the newspaper to publish his response under a Fla right of reply statute. Ct wouldn’t allow the state to require this, saying that the statute infringes on the 1st A rights of newspapers in many ways even w/o preventing them to say certain things; this is a functional tax on the space the candidate would use. Press autonomy is part of what’s protected by the 1st A. State said that, with the # of newspapers shrinking, each one had increasing influence and this was unhealthy for the political process.
Responsible press is desirable, but it’s not mandated by the Const’n and can’t be legislated.
a. Note: Ct here resists the idea that govn’t regulation of newspapers (presumably to improve the quality/amount of debate) is const’lly permissible.
b. Would probably be different if the statute required (and the state paid for) a letters to the editor page each week with randomly chosen letters. ii. Broadcasting:
1. When broadcasting first came into existence, nobody knew what to do with it. FCC said that the govn’t owned the airways and licensed users, insisting that they act in the public interest (licenses subject to renewal on a yearly basis) b/c of scarce resource.
a. Alternatives: put stations up for bid, don’t let the govn’t regulate
b. Require “fairness”; broadcasters must dedicate some time to info about news/controversial public policy.
i. Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC (SCOTUS 1969): FCC adopted “fairness doctrine”, which req’d radio and TV broadcasters to present discussions of public issues and provide fair coverage of each side. Also required that broadcasters give any person who’s personally attacked notice, a transcript of the attack, and a reasonable opp’ty to respond (same with candidate endorsements and opponents). Broadcasting Co challenged the regulations and the Ct upheld them, saying that 1st A protections apply to broadcasting, but they require special standards b/c of the scarcity of broadcast channels. The 1st A doesn’t allow licensees to monopolize a radio frequency.
Page 30 of 31

2.

ii. Note: in 1987 the FCC repealed the fairness doctrine on grounds that it chilled broadcasters’ 1st A rights.
No more scarcity, no more use requirements: i.e. must carry provisions:
a. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (Turner I) (SCOTUS 1994): 1992 Act req’d cable tv operators to carry (free) transmission of local broadcast TV stations (to counter concentration of economic power in the industry); Turner sued challenging the “must carry” provisions, and the Ct said that the “fairness doctrine” (from Red Lion) doesn’t apply b/c there’s less “scarceness” in cable TV. Applied the intermediate level of scrutiny (applicable to content-neutral restrictions that impose an incidental burden on speech) from O’Brien; Ct held that the case should be vacated for further factfinding.
i. Note: on remand, the Ct aff’d the prior result (j/FCC) b/c Congress had substantial evidence for its judgment and the rules were substantially related to the important govn’t interest in competition and diversity in programming.

Page 31 of 31