Assistance

Jimmy101

note_taking.docx

Home >Law homework help >Assistance

· Cohen V. California (1971);

First give a summary of this case. Then answer these questions,

1. Write about which way the court get it wrong? Give me your opinion?

2. Why does the court refowerd to the 14th Amendment?

3. Which kind of speech was?

4. Is this un protected speech?

The court says no, explain,

5. What the court held?

It seems like the court look move action that what does matter.

6. Mention this graph but make sure to use your own words because I copied from the book ( In the first place, Cohen was tried under a statute applicable throughout the entire State. Any attempt to support this conviction on the ground that the statute seeks to preserve an appropriately decorous atmosphere in the courthouse where Cohen was arrested must fail in the absence of any language in the statute that would have put appellant on notice that certain kinds of otherwise permissible speech or conduct would nevertheless, under California Law, not be tolerated in certain places. No fair reading of the phrase “offensive conduct” can be said sufficiently to inform the ordinary person that distinctions between certain locations are thereby created).

· New Yourk v. Ferber(1982)

· Whether child porn speech should be protected

· Miller test: determines whether it is legally obscene

· New test: it must visually depict sexual conduct by children below a specified age

· Unprotected

· What is the Miller test required?

· The speech has low value.

· US v. O’Brien (1968)

· O’Brien burned Selective Service registration certificate for the mandatory draft as an act of protest to convey a particularized message

· Notification is the reason for the certificates

· Symbolic speech b/c he intended to convey a message

· If he did it & it wasn’t symbolic, it wouldn’t be protected, b/c it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment if it doesn’t intend to convey a message

· He intended to convey the message that he didn’t like the draft/war

· Government interests: maintain national security, governmental interests are unrelated to the suppression of speech

· O’Brien test: government regulation is justified if it furthers a governmental interest; if the interest is unrelated to suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged 1st amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. (applies b/c it is speech + conduct)

· Yes, he can be punished b/c government satisfied O’Brien test

· Texas v. Johnson (1989)

· Burning of a flag

· Analyzed under strict scrutiny

1. He intended to communicate a message

2. Government has a substantial interest? No b/c it’s related to Johnson’s message; state says they were trying to bring order – no. Flag is symbol but government can’t say how people can use it. Since government interests were only about silencing the speaker ->

3. It goes to strict scrutiny. Therefore, he was entitled to burn the flag as part of his 1st amendment rights, he was protected.

· Dissent: unique flag is a symbol for our whole nation & it represents our history so the statute against flag burning should be unconstitutional