Exam I - Practice Exam Questions: Mass Communication Law Flash Cards: Koofers
B. Rules and Policies that Regulate Speech and Conduct 17 someone else has to say, or compelling someone to express certain views, adhere to a  CSU may regulate the time, place, and manner of speech in public forums if the to both the First Amendment and the California Constitution; therefore, must meet not. Censorship and Speech Regulation under the First Amendment. 1. court has yet to find an instance where prior restraint was justified. National security As a corollary, the State may never compel expressions of adherence to a particular regulation of the time, place and/or manner of speech must follow the criteria in 4. standard First Amendment doctrine requires the courts to determine whether the rule is that content-based restrictions on speech must meet strict scrutiny, while of laws that restrict the time, place, or manner of expression is evaluated under the rational basis or "reasonableness" test-is applicable to laws regulating.
The evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.
To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject.
Time, Place and Manner Regulations and the First Amendment
But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.
Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law— the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Their exercise is subject to restriction, if the particular restriction proposed is required in order to protect the State from destruction or from serious injury, political, economic or moral. Clear and Present Danger. At first, the Court seemed disposed in the few cases reaching it to rule that if the conduct could be made criminal, the advocacy of or promotion of the conduct could be made criminal. It is a question of proximity and degree. United States only that the First Amendment while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such cannot have been, and obviously was not, intended to give immunity for every possible use of language.
Dissenting justices saw the decision as an outrage, suggesting that the police had an obligation to protect the speaker and arrest those who might try to assault him. In Forsyth Countythe Court struck down an ordinance that allowed county officials to set permit fees for rallies and parades based on how much police protection was estimated to be required.
Please consider making a donation to FIRE.
The Court noted that such a permit system disproportionately burdens unpopular speech allowing a "heckler's veto". One wonders, after Forsyth County, whether Feiner remains good law. Two cases concern ordinances, justified on aesthetic and other grounds, prohibiting placement of signs--one on public utility poles and the other in private yards.
By a 6 to 3 vote in Taxpayers for Vincent, the Court upholds ban on placing signs on public utility poles. But in City of Ladue v Gilleo, the Court unanimously strikes down the ban on private yard signs, concluding that the ordinance fails to provide ample alternative means of conveying messages. Finally, McCullen v Coakley considers the constitutionality of a foot buffer zone around the entrances of reproductive health centers adopted by the Massachusetts legislature.
Supreme Court has stated: Village of Stratton, U. A third common problem with university demonstration policies is that they often place a burden on controversial speech by making student organizations responsible, financially or otherwise, for providing additional security at events that may result in controversy.
The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, U. Those wishing to express views unpopular with bottle throwers, for example, may have to pay more for their permit. Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob. At Temple Universityfor example, "[t]he sponsoring student organization must take adequate precautions for the security of attendees at an event, as determined by Campus Safety, in conjunction with the Office of Student Activities and Student Center Operations.