Constitutional Law II
Archived Posts from this Category
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
Constitutional Law II #19: Expressive Conduct Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:58 am
All speech is symbolic, with written speech using symbols (ie letters) to convey messages. However, often times valid and worthwhile criminal laws will intersect with symbolic activities (ie expressive conduct). We’ll look at what happens with these intersections in this episode.
United States v. O’Brien
Texas v. Johnson
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.
Constitutional Law II #18: Hate Speech Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:58 am
Perhaps a special breed of fighting words is hate speech. Our discussion of hate speech will give us a new underinclusion doctrine that deals with the “low-value speech” of fighting words, obscenity, etc.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
Wisconsin v. Mitchell
Constitutional Law II #17: Fighting Words Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:58 am
It has often been said that “fighting words” are outside the protection of the First Amendment. What does that mean, and what exactly are fighting words? We’ll look at the evolution of this doctrine in this episode.
Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire
Cohen v. California
The Skokie Cases
Constitutional Law II #16: Prior Restraint Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:57 am
Speech may only rarely be held back from publication because it is considered unlawful. Rather, publication is allowed, with consequences to follow after the fact. When such publication is not allowed, a prior restraint is said to occur, and the First Amendment is not kind to such prior restraints.
Near v. Minnesota
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
NY Times v. United States
Constitutional Law II #15: Various Terms Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:54 am
Before proceeding further, we need to define various terms. Content-neutrality, viewpoint-neutrality, overbreadth, vagueness, secondary effects, and other speech-related doctrines will be discussed here.
PD of the City of Chicago v. Mosley
Renten v. Playtime Theatres
Constitutional Law II #14: Clear and Present Danger II Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:54 am
After Holmes and Brandeis left the Court, the Clear and Present Danger test continued to evolve. It finds its current form in the very speech protective Brandenburg test, requiring both likelihood of imminent danger and intent to bring about that danger.
Dennis v. United States
Yates v. United States
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Constitutional Law II #13: Clear and Present Danger I Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:54 am
Current Speech Clause jurisprudence has its genesis in the clear and present danger doctrine. This doctrine developed through a number of dissents (and the occasional concurrence) from Holmes and Brandeis.
Schenck v. United States
Abrams v. United States
Gitlow v. New York
Whitney v. California
Constitutional Law II #12: Intro to Free Speech Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:53 am
We now turn to what has been called the “first among equals” within the Bill of Rights: the Freedom of Speech. We’ll look at the history of the Speech clause, along with the different models that have been suggested for speech protection.