Term
|
Definition
| The NYT published an ad criticizing the Montgomery County police dept. for treating civil rights protestors inhumanely. The ad was very false, so the Chief of Police, Sullivan, sued. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Knowledge you're printing something false
-OR-
Reckless disregard for the truth |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| you won't get arrested for doing it, but you can be sued. |
|
|
Term
| The "actual malice" standard applies only to: |
|
Definition
| public figures. Average citizens have a lower libel standard. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Sullivan lost because he couldn't prove actual malice, the new standard for libel which the ruling created. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The NYT got stolen Pentagon papers and was going to publish them, so the government sued to keep them from being published. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When the government tries to keep something from being published, it's a prior restraint. Prior restraints, in 99.999% of cases, are unconstitutional. NYT won. |
|
|
Term
| What's the 3-part standard for obscenity? |
|
Definition
1)Dominated by a prurient sexual interest
2)Regulations must be specific about what exactly obscenity is
3)Must be devoid of serious literary, scientific, artistic, or political value |
|
|
Term
| What case set up the 3-part obscenity standard? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which parts of the 3-part standard are community standards? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What part of the (c) makes the takings clause apply to the states? |
|
Definition
| Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the due process clause |
|
|
Term
| Which cases define what a taking is? |
|
Definition
| Penn Central Transportation v. NY and Lucas v. SC Coastal Council |
|
|
Term
| What was the 3-part balance Penn Central Transportation v. NY established? |
|
Definition
1)Economic impact on the owner
2)Extent to which it interferes wtih investment expectations
3)Character of the government taking |
|
|
Term
| What case set up the 3-part balance for deciding whether or not something was a taking? |
|
Definition
| Penn Central Transportation v. NY |
|
|
Term
| What 2 categories don't require the Penn Central Balancing Act? |
|
Definition
1) Physical invasion of the property (like building a school on it)
2) Where the government regulation has denied all economically beneficial and productive use of the land |
|
|
Term
| What case listed the two exceptions to the Penn Central Balance rule? |
|
Definition
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council |
|
|
Term
| What did Lucas v. SC Coastal Council do? |
|
Definition
| Set up the 2-part exception to the Penn Central rule |
|
|
Term
| What case helped define what a public use was? |
|
Definition
| Kelo v. City of New London |
|
|
Term
| What did Kelo v. City of New London do? |
|
Definition
| Set up rational basis scrutiny for defining "public purpose" |
|
|
Term
| What is rational basis scrutiny when it comes to a "public purpose" that would justify a taking? |
|
Definition
| The gov's purpose needs to be legitimate and not irrational. |
|
|
