November 2006
Monthly Archive
Constitutional Law II #25: Indecent Speech I Monday, Nov 13 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:56 am
Often times speech will not rise to the level of “obscene”, but will be considered “indecent.” (For example, it could be considered obscene as to minors.) When public broadcasting is concerned, there are certain regulations that the state can place on this speech. I also advocate examining these regulations based upon a commons model, allowing the government to regulate indecency only when the medium technologically requires the government to establish licenses for using the medium.
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (SCOTUS, 1976)
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (SCOTUS, 1978)
Sable Communication of CA, Inc v. FCC (SCOTUS, 1989)
Constitutional Law II #24: Obscenity Monday, Nov 13 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:50 am
Obscenity is often said to be outside the 1st Amendment. In this episode we will look at the policies and arguments that underly not protecting obscenity, the historical (and continuing) difficulty in defining exactly what obscenity is, as well as the current test for obscenity.
Wikipedia article on Robert Mapplethorpe
Roth v. United States (SCOTUS, 1957)
Ginzburg v. United States (SCOTUS, 1966)
Miller v. California (SCOTUS, 1973)
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (SCOTUS, 1973)
Constitutional Law II #23: Commercial Speech Monday, Nov 13 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II 2:43 am
Commercial speech historically received no 1st Amendment protection. However, that has somewhat recently changed, granting commercial speakers an intermediate level of protection.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (SCOTUS 1976)
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp v. Public Service Comm’n (SCOTUS, 1980)
44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island (SCOTUS, 1996)
Constitutional Law II #22: State-Funded Speech Monday, Nov 13 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:40 am
When the government pays for speech, it is also given additional leeway in crafting the conveyed message. Examples are government employees and those receiving government funding.
Rust v. Sullivan (SCOTUS, 1991)
Rosenburger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia (SCOTUS, 1995)
United States v. American Library Association, Inc. (SCOTUS, 2003)
Constitutional Law II #21: Speech in Schools Monday, Nov 13 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:34 am
In restricted environments, such as militaries, prisons, and schools, the government is given slightly more leeway to restrict speech. In this episode we will examine the rules that apply to schools.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (SCOTUS, 1969)
Bethel School District v. Fraser (SCOTUS, 1986)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (SCOTUS, 1998)
Constitutional Law II #20: Forum Analysis Monday, Nov 13 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:30 am
Just because property is publicly owned, doesn’t mean that the government can’t restrict what type of speech goes on there. Different rules apply to different types of “public forums” (or perhaps “public fora”). In this episode we will look at some of the considerations that go into calibrating protection based on the relevant forum.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee
Canadian Constitutional Law #8: The Depression and the New Deal Legislation Sunday, Nov 5 2006
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 3:15 am
In this episode we’ll discuss the “New Deal” legislation, six statutes enacted by RP Bennett’s government in 1935 to combat the depression. These acts were mostly ruled ultra vires by the JCPC in two reference decisions that sparked some backlash towards the Privy Council’s strict interpretations, and later led to a constitutional amendment.
The Unemployment Act 1930
The Farmers’ Creditors Arrangement Act 1934 Natural Products Marketing Act 1934
Limitation of Hours Work Act 1935
Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act 1935
Minimum Wage Act 1935
Employment and Social Insurance Act 1935
Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act 1935
British North America Act (Constitution Act) 1867, s132
AG Canada v AG Ontario (labour conventions act) (1937)
AG Canada v AG Ontario (the employment and social insurance act) (1937)
The O’Conner Report 1939
The Rowell-Sirois Commission 1940