80 likes | 314 Vues
American Constitutional Law. Judicial Review Constitutional interpretation Originalists/strict constructionists “fundamental rightists” State action requirement Standing Ripeness. Freedom of Speech. First Amendment (see handout) Reasons for protecting free speech
E N D
American Constitutional Law • Judicial Review • Constitutional interpretation • Originalists/strict constructionists • “fundamental rightists” • State action requirement • Standing • Ripeness
Freedom of Speech • First Amendment (see handout) • Reasons for protecting free speech • Basic principle: content neutrality • Another principle: offensiveness does not justify censorship • Exceptions to free speech protection • Crimes of language • Fighting words • Seditious speech • obscenity
Miller test of obscenity An item is obscene if: • (1) the "average person, applying contemporary community standards," would find that the work as a whole, "appeals to the prurient interest" in sex; • (2) the work depicts "in a patently offensive way" sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and • (3) the work, taken as a whole, "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Time, place, and manner restrictions • In a “traditional public forum” • Government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions • The restrictions must be unrelated to content • The restrictions must leave open sufficient alternative means of expression
Symbolic speech (the O’Brien test) If an activity consists of both speech and conduct, the government can regulate the (non-communicative) conduct if: • (1) if the regulation furthers an important or substantial governmental interest that is not related to the suppression of free expression, and • (2) if the "incidental restriction" on claimed First Amendment protected activity "is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest."
Other issues relating to free speech • Gov’t cannot impose prior restraints • Gov’t cannot compel people to speak • Vagueness and Overbreadth • Regulation of radio and television • Campaign financing • The reporter privilege • Commercial speech
Freedom of Religion • The “establishment” clause (see handout) • The test of Lemon v. Kurtzman: • (1) the law or action must have a secular purpose, • (2) its primary effect must be that it neither advances nor inhibits religion, and • (3) it must not foster "excessive government entanglement" with religion
The “free exercise” clause • Traditional approach: strict scrutiny • The law must be necessary to a compelling state interest • It must be narrowly drawn to accomplish that interest • There must be no less restrictive alternative • Modern approach: No free exercise problem if the law is generally applicable and valid