Issues: Did Ms. Akre’s claims meet the whistle-blower statue? Was the “news distortion policy” adopted as rule by the FCC? Should a plaintiff be awarded attorney’s fees from the defendant in an appeals case?…
1. What is the most “jealously” protected kind of speech, according to the court in this case? (3 points)…
Attorney Theodore Olsen, who argued on behalf of Citizens United, claimed that the FEC was violating Citizens United’s First Amendment rights by limiting the films distribution. One key argument made by Olsen is that the BCRA did not intend to prohibit this type of film. Olsen claimed that the film was indistinguishable from news media; however, Justice Souter cited numerous examples of the documentary bashing then Senator Clinton and suggested that the film was more like campaign advocacy. This is an important distinction—does it make a difference if the film…
Sheppard v. Maxwell, was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant's right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In particular, the court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of the trial judge's failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution.…
In 1963 Clarence Earl Gideon presented himself in front of the Supreme Court. Gideon had been indicted for breaking and entering; after defending himself in his preliminary trial he was sentenced to five years in prison. During his time in jail, Gideon did some research on law and wrote an appeal to the Supreme Court. Gideon’s request of representation was on behalf of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decided to put the case on trial; it related back to the Betts v. Brady case of 1942. Unlike Betts v. Brady’s 6-3 ruling in which Betts had lost, Gideon won the case with an astounding 9-0 majority. The main issue of the case centers on proper representation of the defendant. In order for the reader to fully understand the scope of the case, he or she needs to consider Betts v. Brady.…
The case was dismissed due to the state of New York not having a common-law claim for invasion of privacy. Also, the plaintiff’s claim for violation of civil rights law 50 and 51 was dismissed because the plaintiff’s name and likeness was not up for trade or being advertised. The claim for defamation was dismissed because the statement “flagrant opportunist” was the opinion of the defendant.…
In the Rutgers suicide case, the main conflict of interests is the privacy of Tyler Clementi and Ravi’s freedom of speech. As a homosexual, Tyler Clementi also had the interest of being treated fairly without discrimination, just as ordinary people. In today’s society, with homosexual becoming more common and accepted, gay rights keep growing. The public expect Ravi to be nice with his gay roommate instead of invasion his privacy and bias.…
Although I understand that it is obvious that information given in a parody, especially one found in a source such as Hustler magazine, cannot be read as the truth, I find it hard to believe that there is not some kind of punishment for publishing such information. I am also bothered by the fact that because the parody states that it is a parody in tiny letters that would not be noticed by a reader simply glancing at the ad Flynt is off the hook. However, the court did support Falwell's claim of emotional distress. I think this is fair because Flynt had obviously published the parody in order to express his feelings toward Falwell. Flynt believed Falwell was a hypocrite, and wanted other people to feel the same way.…
In the groundbreaking case Gideon vs. Wainwright we are given a prime example of a Supreme Court case and its impact on federalism. Gideon was accused of felony burglary charges after an eyewitness placed him at the scene of a robbery. Although there was no evidence of him committing the crime, police arrested him and charged him with the theft based solely on an eye witness report. The sequences of events that would follow would change the way states were ordered to provide due process and create a fair and balanced trial for all felony trials.…
Wallace vs Jaffree was a United States Supreme Court case on June 4, 1985 that ruled 6-3 that an Alabama statute that authorized a one minute period of silence in all public schools violated the First Amendment. This ruling caused many people were angry with the way the schools handled the complaint. The complaint was filed in May 1982 by Ishmael Jaffree, but did not initially mention any statute. Before filing the case, he talked to one of the children's teachers about stopping the prayer,…
Another issue that is being battled are the profanity laws, laws to control "obscene" material. ACLU believes that "a free and equitable society should ensure each individual the privilege to choose what craftsmanship or stimulation they read, watch, or listen to" which implies everyone has the option to see and acquire media in which they need. Since whats "obscene" is not a widespread understanding, what is considered obscene is made up because of situations. This is likewise contradicting with the constitution particularly, in light of the fact that America is a vote based nation. In the 1997, the Supreme Court ruling against the communication decency act of the Reno v ACLU case. This made a more extensive protection that restrains the content of what's communicated on the radio and television. I bolster ACLU in light of the fact that I trust that we as a whole have voices and we ought to have the capacity to convey what needs be however to the degree where our message is heard yet non…
FACTS OF THE CASE: George Hardwick was seen by a Georgia police officer committing consensual homosexual sodomy. The officer was coming to arrest him because he did not pay off his violation ticket. Hardwick was then charged for criminalized sodomy due to a Georgia statute. The federal district court dismissed the case because Hardwick failed to make a valid claim against the constitutionality. When appealed, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the court’s decision, saying the statute was unconstitutional. The Attorney General of Georgia appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.…
In order to understand the court case of Hughes vs. TWA one must understand a little about the background of Howard…
In the case New York Times v. Sullivan demonstrates the right to make false statements by ring that public officials cannot be victims of libel unless the speaker acted with malice. In the case Texas v. Johnson demonstrates the right to disagreeable speech by ruling that the Texas law was unconstitutional and had violated Johnsons right to freedom of speech.…
Compare Hoepker, 200 F. Supp. 2d at 353 (plaintiff was allowed to sell images of the Kruger Composite on trinkets in the gift shop without Dabney’s consent owing to the fact that “Dabney’s image was affixed to various gift items not to flaunt her visage, but because the gift items reproduced the Kruger Composite, a work of art displayed by the Whitney”), and ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 936 (despite selling his original art work representing the exact likeness of Tiger Woods as mass-produced posters, the district court granted summary judgment to the artist because “celebrities have come to symbolize certain ideas and values in our society and have become a valuable means of expression in our culture”), with Brinkley v. Casablancas, 438 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1011 (App. Div. 1981) (Brinkley was able to enjoin Casablanca’s production and sale of a poster depicting the plaintiff because she had not given consent and despite being a newsworthy figure, the newsworthiness and public concern exemption “privilege does not extend to commercialization of [her] personality through a form of treatment distinct from the dissemination of news or information”), and Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for…