Russian Submarine, CIA suppressed story of found ship

= in the interest of Public Security do not have to reveal information GLOMAR PRINCIPLE

Phillippi vs CIA

documents as a result were exempt from FOI request 

GLOMAR PRINCIPLE

Whether Hustler reporters had a First Amendment right to accompany the first wave of U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

= no embedded right, and access to battlefield were reasonable time, place, and manner

United States vs Marchetti

continued with Knopf vs Colby

Author of CIA book, CIA wanted secret info suppressed

= book published with many blanked out parts

Published book with names and addresses of CIA agents, and at least 6 assassinations resulted

=US revoked passport and said publishing secret information deemed treasonous

claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information.

=The Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment DID protect the New York Times' right to print said materials of the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

Government could not show severe harm or damage*

Tried to prevent the Progressive newspaper from printing "secrets" about the Hydrogen even though complied from public domains

SIGNIFICANCE= The court's injunction, constituting prior restraint on publication, was the first of its kind in American history. yet case was dismissed as could not prevent articles being written.

Fastest piece of Legislation passed after 9/11 without knowing the details to the bill

10 sections in the act that gave greater authority to search and seizures

internet provider was asked for private information and was given a gag order to not disclose the situation of the national security letters

=non disclosure requirement subject to strict scrutiny

= lacks precision that 1st amendment requires

- interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society far outweighs any benefits of censorship OVERBROAD

This was the first major Supreme Court ruling regarding the regulation of materials distributed via Internet. The CDA was an attempt to protect minors from explicit material on the Internet by criminalizing the knowing transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18, yet was a hinderance to adults

protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit materials on the Internet, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) because the statute relies on community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors.

="there is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech"

First Amendment rights sustained

No laws agains stupid websites

offensive, obnoxious, insulting, school can do nothing unless pertains to a direct blatent threat

Pornography (protected)

Obscenity (not protected)

Indecency

-erotic, sexually stimulating

-offensive to society

-definition unsure of in court rulings

emotional and physical:

-cathartic, releases tension and emotion

-accumulative, builds up tension until you react in real life sexually

experimental methods:

Presidents commission on Obscenity and Pornography

found pornography led to crime and violence (Republican)

1. violence

2. Degradation

3. Nudity

="deprave and Corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" said nobody should read material that is sensitive to the most innocent minds

looked at the content in question not as a whole, but only in part. In other words, it did not consider the questionable material in relation to whole content.

made it illegal to send any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. In addition to banning contraceptives, this act also banned the distribution of information on abortion for educational purposes

-rid all bad influences

Landmark case, redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.

=Congress could ban material, "utterly without redeeming social importance," or in other words, "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest."

Court held that although circulars themselves may not be obscene, their public mailing offends the federal obscenity statute if they advertise obscene materials. The Court reasoned that where the sole emphasis of an advertisement is the commercial exploitation of erotica for prurient appeal, it shall be deemed "pornographic" communication that lies beyond the scope of First Amendment speech protections.

=obscene in the context of their production, sale, and attendant publicity, PANDERING, Evidence that the petitioners deliberately represented the accused publications as erotically arousing and commercially exploited them as erotica solely for the sake of prurient appeal

proceedings against an "obscene" book, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure.

=The Court held that the Massachusetts courts erred in finding Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure to be obscene. The Court, applying the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States, held that the book was not "utterly without redeeming social value." The Court reaffirmed that books could not be deemed obscene unless they were unqualifiedly worthless, even if the books possessed prurient appeal and were "patently offensive."

involves what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material

CURRENT OBSCENITY TEST

 a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of "obscenity."

= 1) offensive sexual content

2) lacks serious literary merit

3) offends local community standards

Copyright gives the creator of an ORIGINAL work or idea exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication

-included in the constitution, article 1

Patent: useful, application of idea

Trademark: used to indicate origin of goods or services

Copyright Infringement

Plagerism

-unauthorized use of copyrighted materials

-appropriating all or part of a composition or idea and passing them off as ones own

balances right of owners vs those who want access

$ part test:

1) Purpose of use :commerical,education

2)Nature of Work: fact,fiction

3)Proportion taken in relation to work as whole:percentage of work used

4) Economic impact: no profit from use

personal property, subject to state property laws

-inherited

-sold

you can sign away some rights and keep others

Distinguished between facts and ideas (not copyrightable)

and their unique expression (copyrightable)

-persuades us to buy goods we dont need

-appeals to emotion rather than intellect

-biased

-conflicting claims

-repititious

-vulgar

-subliminal advertising (Wilson Bryan Key)

as long as behaves in "all material aspects" like the photo, its acceptable

for example picture of big mac vs the real product

Wheeler Lea Amendment- Power to regulate advertising

tour of submarine flyers were creating litter and city decided to haul distribution

=Supreme Court of the United States ruled that commercial speech is not protected under the First Amendment

Pro-abortion Ads were deemed illegal

=The Court held that the Virginia law infringed upon Bigelow's First Amendment rights and violated the Constitution. the advertisement in question contained important information in the "public interest" which went beyond merely informing readers of a commercial service.

listerine claimed to kill germs that led to cold, however virus is cause of cold

= the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to force companies to run "corrective" advertising

Rhode Island passed a statute banning the advertisement of retail liquor prices in places where liquor is not sold

=The District Court found the ban unconstitutional, noting that it did not serve any interest Rhode Island might have had in promoting temperance or an attempt to curb drunk driving