Rational Strict Compelling Narrowly Tailored United States vs… O’Brien This is speech (from Texas vs… Johnson) Conveying message and message has to be understood Can he be put in Jail for burning draft card? Is it unconstitutional? Content neutral regulation Cannot get people to effectively fight without draft cards Understood because they beat him up Need to call for service vs… O’Brien speech Call to service wins You can’t say whatever you like if it affects the gobs ability to run Intermediate scrutiny (can suppress speech if):
Furthers an important or substantial gob influence If the governmental interest is separated from the freedom of expression If the incidental restriction is no greater than essential than the furthers of that interest Strict scrutiny Narrowly tailored Waving a rebel flag after a touchdown at an Ole Miss game (want to stop it because it’s stopping black players from Joining the team) Is it suppression of speech? There is a state actor and speech So is it intermediate or strict?
Content based (strict scrutiny) Don’t say no rebel flags- say no sticks allowed in football games and no banners cause people can’t see from behind them Content neutral regulation(intermediate and O’Brien) Don’t care about flag, care about the sticks Don’t care what’s on the banner, care about the people’s ability to see Intermediate There are alternative ways to wear the rebel flag Hat- content neutral (substantial gob interest and unrelated to freedom of expression) Time, place, and manner of restriction Ex. Free speech alley vs… N another road because it could be disturbing the peace Freeman wins Open toed shoes State actor but no speech Rational based scrutiny- automatic Freeman win Greek letters Content based regulation because you’re singling out a group- class wins Red State actor- regularly red shirts have no meaning/speech If red shirt has a message then its content neutral Late Rational bases- Freeman wins Phones Content neutral- Freeman wins Offensive shirts Content based and vague and over broad Class wins Defamation: damages are external false statement fault of the publisher Times vs…
Sullivan damages of the concern of the plaintiff difference between a dean and the dean context clues to figure out who is speaking eying all the Trim Deltas have the clap sorority itself could have a cause of action, it could affect pledge count but not individual members could defame women’s basketball team easier because it’s a smaller group its all about the connection between the statement and the victim published Public official vs… Public figure retired general organized an attack on military when trying to integrate wrote a story that said that GA coach was feeding info to al public figures are treated like public officials public officials are elected Egret vs… Welch Who is public and who is private?
Pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts (BeyondГ©) Individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby become a public figure for a limited range of issues (Less Miles) Duty Risk Analysis for Louisiana about this Did the reporter have a duty to the plaintiff Did you breach the duty when you said something Ex. Used wrong transcript when writing a recommendation and student didn’t get into law school because of it. Is defamation. Reporters have a higher standard than regular people What can you do after you defame someone?
Limit defamation and damages because you admit to the mistake Usually the best for a private figure Offer a right of reply For public figure Let the person defamed to straighten the record Injunction Not favored in law Go to court and the courts says that you can’t make those statements anymore l- issue R- rule of law A- apply C- conclusion Privileges Absolute privileges (5) Even if whole statement is defamatory, no defamation Statement made in course of Judicial preceding Say ex-wife beats me, not true but said in court so no defamation Legislative receding Buchanan calls president a wife-beater, made in legislature no defamation Made by elected officials made in the course/scope of their duty School board member, after shootings need greater security so crazy vets stop shooting people. Communication between spouses Compelled broadcast Conditional privileges Lost if abused Fair and accurate reporting of a public preceding Fair comment on a public issue/controversy Monica Leninism Facts: The Florida Star printed the full name of a sexual assault victim in its newspaper. Florida Stats. 794. 03 (1987) makes it unlawful to “print, publish, or roadways… In any instrument of mass communication” the name of the victim of a sexual offense. Issues: Was publishing a sexual assault victim’s name consistent with the First Amendment?
Holding: No it is not consistent with the First Amendment Reasoning: Only “a state interest of the highest order” permits the State to penalize the publication of truthful information, and by holding that protecting a rape victim’s right to privacy is not among those state interests of the highest order. Florida Stats. 794. 03 (1987) makes it unlawful to “print, publish, or broadcast … N any Pursuant to this statute, appellant The Florida Star was found civilly liable for publishing the name of a rape victim which it had obtained from a publicly released police report. The issue presented here is whether this result comports with the First Amendment.
We hold that it does not. “[B. J. F. ] reported on Thursday, October 20, she was crossing Breadroot Park, which is in the 500 block of Golfer Boulevard, Norte to her bus stop, when an unknown black man ran up behind the lady and placed a knife to her neck and told her not to yell. The suspect then undressed the lady and had sexual intercourse with her before fleeing the scene with her 60 cents, Timex watch and gold necklace. Patrol efforts have been suspended concerning this incident because of a lack of evidence. ” In printing B. J. F. ‘s full name, The Florida Star violated its internal policy of not publishing the names of sexual offense victims.
We hold only that where a newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order, and that no such interest is dissatisfactory served by imposing liability under 794. 03 to appellant under the 9 facts of this case. Daily Mail in our synthesis of prior cases involving attempts to punish truthful publication: “[l]f a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order. 3 principles to apply from Daily Mail formula: public interest secured by the Constitution the dissemination of truth