67 %
33 %
Information about Lecture10_Fa2006.

Published on November 28, 2008

Author: aSGuest4393

Source: authorstream.com

Slide 1: CMCN 345 Communication Law and Ethics William R. Davie, Ph.D Lecture 10 September 21, 2006 Slide 2: Agenda - Law & Ethics • Attendance Roll Oral Arguments/Research Papers Continue Fighting Words Doctrine Case briefings/Socratic Dialogue Summary Review CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 3: Lecture 10 “Sticks & Stones...cont.” CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 4: Fighting-Words Summary * Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) “…certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problems.” * Divining Worthy & Worthless speech: 1) Inflicts injury 2) Incites breach of peace CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 5: Fighting-Words Summary Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) First Amendment was designed “to invite dispute,” to induce “a condition of unrest,” to “create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,” and even to “stir people to anger.” CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 6: Terminiello v. Chicago Rule First Amendment protects lawful assemblies from disruption if gathering is CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Fighting-Words and the Doctrine of Disruption legal orderly and nonviolent (3) hostile onlookers are the ones creating the threat to the peace. Slide 7: “Fighting Words” and the Doctrine of Disruption CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 -- Cohen v. California (1971) No banned words of infliction; ideas of passion and rational thought protected. Slide 8: Fighting-Words Summary Cohen v. California (1971) “The constitutional right of free expression is…putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us…” It is up to the viewers to “avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.” CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 9: Evolution of the “Fighting Words” Doctrine into Hate Speech Legislation CMCN 345 Lecture 10, Sept. 21, 2006 1952/78 -- Nazi-styled demonstrations 1992 -- R.A.V. v. St. Paul 1993 -- Mississippi’s Burning in Wisconsin 1988-92-96 -- Soldier of Fortune cases 1989-2001 -- Campus Speech Codes 2003 -- Cross-burning revisited Slide 10: “Fighting Words” Evolution CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Gooding v. Wilson (1971) CASE BRIEFING: Rose Schumacher Slide 11: Opprobrious Speech Rule -- Gooding v. Wilson (1972) Opprobrious words too vague; must tend to provoke “violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.” -- Lewis v. New Orleans (1974) …utterance of vulgar epithet does not constitute a breach of peace; NOLA ordinance was substantially overbroad and hence unconstitutional. CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 12: Nazi Hate -- Chicago Style 1978 -- Neo Nazi march allowed in Collin v. Smith “...peaceful demonstrations cannot be totally precluded solely because the display of the swastika may provoke a violent reaction …” CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 13: “Fighting Words” Evolution CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 RAV v. St. Paul (1992) CASE BRIEFING: Laura Leftwich R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) : CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 “…burning a cross in someone’s front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.” -- Justice A. Scalia R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) : CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Ordinance frame * Content specific “PC speech ban” Bans swastikas and cross burnings “arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” Underbreadth: Overlooks sexual orientation, labor causes, other beliefs? R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) Race Hate Bans : CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 ADL B’nai Brith ban prescription - 46 statutes LA RS Sec. 102.2 “it shall be unlawful for any person to select the victim…because of actual or perceived race, age, gender, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry of that person…” 1993 - Wisconsin v. Mitchell - Hate Crime Penalty Enhancement Upheld. Race Hate Bans Virginia v. Black (2003) : CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 • Cases joined: Virginia Beach -- Richard Elliott & Jonathan O’Mara; Carroll County -- Klansman Barry Elton Black SCOTUS upheld state law due to threatening nature of the act. Plurality dissented against prima facie provision. Justice Thomas dissented on the basis of conduct - cross burning always a threat. Virginia v. Black (2003) Slide 18: Murder for Hire Incitement Cases 1988 -- Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune accepted John Wayne Hearn’s ad for “high risk assignments” Robert & Sandra Black of Bryan, Tx 1992 -- Braun v. Soldier of Fortune accepted Richard Savage’s “Gun for hire” ad linked to Sean Doutre’s murder of Richard Braun ($4,375,000 damages) 1996 -- Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. James Perry convicted of killing for Lawrence Horn Mildred and Trevor Horn and Trevor’s nurse Janice Saunders. Two books: Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors; How to Make a Disposable Silencer CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 19: Incitement and Media Miming 1995 -- Patsy Ann Byers shot in Ponchatoula by Sarah Edmondson and Benjamin Darrus after watching Natural Born Killers by Oliver Stone. Case against Time Warner dismissed in 2001. 1988 -- 2000 McCollum v. CBS, Inc. Ozzy Osbourne’s “Suicide Solution” Other suits filed against Judas Priest, Slayer, and Video Games: Mortal Kombat, Doom, Redneck Rampage, Final Fantasy, Nightmare Creatures, etc. 2001 -- Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists -- Nuremberg Site striking through names of murdered doctors CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 Slide 20: CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 P.C. Codes Controversy -- Hate Speech attacked -- Rationale for bans -- Kent Greenawalt’s 4 Harms * threat of violence * offensive language * psychological hurt * stereotypes Infliction of Harm (Physical/Emotional) : CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 • Duty of due care must be established. Defendant negligently breached duty. Breach of duty causes severe emotional distress or physical harm. Breach was the proximate cause of the harm. Liability + Fault = Damages Infliction of Harm (Physical/Emotional) Summary Points : CMCN 345 Lecture 10, September 21, 2006 • Fighting words doctrine in Chaplinsky: Evolved from content and consequences Hate-speech bans targeting specific minorities (content) evolved to inflicting emotional distress (consequences). Biased (even hateful) speech is protected. Threatening conduct is not. Summary Points

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages


Criminal Law. Module Handbook. 2008-9. Module Leader: Boaz Ben-Amitai. Academic Department: Law Table of Contents. Table of Contents 2 Information About ...
Read more