Home » LAW » ASSIGNMENTS FOR FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5

ASSIGNMENTS FOR FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5

Allen V.  National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), p. 66. Allen, Start us off with a full-throated defense of the Socialist Party; paraphrase Justices Marshall and Brennan and Eleanor Holmes Norton. See https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/hate-speech-is-vile-and-protected/ 2-3 minutes

Sarita C.  Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions, pp. 74-75.  Summarize this reading and give attention to Justice Roberts in Hague v. CIO.  2 minutes

Danyah T. Public Forum, pp. 75-76, what are the three categories the Court has developed to describe public property for speech purposes?  Are airports traditional “public forums?”  2-3 minutes

Maria P. Permits and Licensing, pp. 76-77.  Summary of the case law in the textbook, are you concerned about “unfettered discretion in administrative officials as permitting a prior restraint” on First Amendment freedoms.  2 mins

Maha B. Intrusion and Community Tranquility, pp. 77- 78.  Summary of the reading, and, should the public sidewalk outside your home be off-limits to protestors?  What is residential privacy? 2 mins.

Alexander T. Private Property, pp. 78-79.  Similar to the public forum doctrines.  Should the First Amendment protect peaceful picketing within a privately owned shopping center?  2 mins

Denice B. Frisby v. Schultz (1988), p. 79, take 356.  Denice, present your case facts. <1 minsZuzanna K. make the argument for Sandra Schultz, 1.5 minsDenice B. make the argument for Frisby and summarize the Court’s opinion, 2 mins.

Emily SchroderOverview of Current Doctrine, p. 84-86   There are layers upon layers of issues related to the constitutional law of speech.  Give quick brief definitions for (1) content neutral; (2) overbreadth and vagueness; 2 mins. Daisy S. (3) categorization; and (4) prior restraint. 2 mins mins

Emily Sanchez. Madsen v. Women’s Health Centers, p. 85, take 356.  tell us about buffer zones?  Do you agree?  Are these zones unconstitutional?  2 mins.  Also discuss Hill if you want?

Laaiba M.  Ward, et. al., v. Rock Against Racism (1989)   Is volume restriction a violation of free expression? 2 mins

Jacky S. Symbolic Speech, Hate Speech, and Conduct That Communicates, pp. 86-89   Overview summary, 2-3 mins.

Dhruvi P. present your brief in United States v. O’Brien (1968) (focus mostly on the facts), p. 89  2 mins Annad K. List and discuss the Court’s four-pronged justification for symbolic speech. 2 mins

Xiomara V. Wooley v. Maynard (1977)  2-3 mins.

Ben G. Spence v. Washington (1974) 2-3 mins

Lesly Z.  Smith v. Goguen (1974) 2 mins

Aysha A. distinguish Texas v. Johnson (1989), p. 92  AND  United States v. Eichman (1990), p. 88, 139.  What is the difference between these two cases?  2-4 mins

Deante D. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Minnesota (1992), p. 98  2-3 mins

Ariana L. Virginia v. Black (2003), 2-3 mins

Freshly Painted White Walls  Allen V.  Start us off with a full-throated defense of my neighbors, Jacqueline L, rebut Allen’s position, restating your professed opposition to First Amendment freedoms, free expression in particular.


2 Comments

  1. Russel Firsby v Sandra shultz 1988
    356: protection of privacy in the home
    Facts:
    Sandra Shultz and Robert Braun who were against abortion picketed outside of the home (public street) of a doc who preformed abortions. She was protesting along with others.

    May 7th 1985The city of Brookfield, Wisconsin passed a law against all pocketing in front of residential homes with the exception of labor disputes.
    Then amended this and included a ban on labor picketing as well. (carey v brown; equal protection) may15 1985
    “The protection and preservation of the home.”
    This law caused Schultz and Braun to stop picketing and file a suit in federal district court.

    Permanent injunction against the law unless it was narrowed in scope
    7th district affirmed that the law violated the 1st Amendment

    Legal question: Does the city ordinance violate the first amendment?

    Plaintiff: “the practice of picketing before or about residences and dwellings causes emotional disturbance and distress to the occupants ” [and] “has as its object the harassing of such occupants.” The ordinance also evinces a concern for public safety, noting that picketing obstructs and interferes with “the free use of public sidewalks and public ways of travel.

    (FROM LYLES WORDPRESS): The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the “captive” audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. The target of the focused picketing banned by the Brookfield ordinance is just such a “captive.” The resident is figuratively and perhaps literally trapped within the home, and because of the unique and subtle impact of such picketing is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech. Thus, the “evil” of targeted residential picketing, “the very presence of an unwelcome visitor at the home,” is “created by the medium of expression itself.” Accordingly, the Brookfield ordinance’s complete ban of that particular medium of expression is narrowly tailored.

    Defendant: (Zuzanna)

    Holding:
    6-3
    The ordinance passed the strict standards of being neutral and serving a significant gov interest which is protecting the well being tranquility and privacy of the home.
    . Since there are other channels of communication the law protects freedom of privacy while not completely limiting censor ship
    -it leaves open ample alternative channels of communication
    – the ban is limited to picketing in front of residential homes.
    – this narrow ordinance allows a more general dissemination of a message
    – they may go door to door expressing their message

    • Defense notes:

      Using the arguments presented in Madsen v. Women’s Health Centers
      –> Public sidewalks are an appropriate place for picketing
      –> The content of the speech should not be impacting the ruling of the Court, rather the time, place, and manner

      Time, Place, and Manner
      –> Broadness of the statute (Lanzetta) would lead to an abolishing of any kind of picketing
      –> the argument brought up in the dissent of this case is that if a young child broke their wrist and a teammate of theirs from a basketball team stood outside their home with a “Get well soon Charlie– our team needs you” poster, they would be violating the statute

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 250 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

css.php