1 / 6

New Topic: content-based restrictions of high value speech

New Topic: content-based restrictions of high value speech. Have been discussing low value categories of speech – all of which involve laws that impose content-based restrictions (i.e., regulate speech based on what the speaker is saying).

mader
Télécharger la présentation

New Topic: content-based restrictions of high value speech

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. New Topic: content-based restrictions of high value speech • Have been discussing low value categories of speech – all of which involve laws that impose content-based restrictions (i.e., regulate speech based on what the speaker is saying). • SCT has few problems with these restrictions if speech is truly low value (BIG issue in some cases – e.g., Stevens, Cohen, etc. was whether laws punishing speech met the reqm’ts established for each category of low value speech) • But Brown SCT goes beyond asking about whether speech is low value and judges speech based on whether it can survive strict scrutiny. • Reflects SCT’s two-tiered approach to speech

  2. Content-Based Restrictions: SCT’s two-tiered approach • Low Value Speech: Stevens indicated that the only methodology SCT used was “history” & “tradition” • Threats, Fighting Words, Incitement, Libel, Obscenity, Child Pornography, Fraud (Comm’l Speech), Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct • High Value Speech: • Speech that is not low value speech – i.e., somehow contributes to public discourse • Content-based restrictionsare subject to strict scrutiny (law must be necessary to meet a compelling state interest) • Content-neutral restrictionssubject to intermediate scrutiny (law must be narrowly drawn to meet important state interest and leave open ample alternatives of communication)

  3. Brown v. EMA – the statute • Cal. Civ. Code § 1746.1(a): A person may not sell or rent a video game that has been labeled as a violent video game to a minor. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1746.1(d)(1)(A): “Violent video game” means a video game [where the options] available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted in the game in a manner that . . . Comes within all of the following descriptions: (i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors. (ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors. (iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

  4. Brown v. EMA – the low value speech issue • Note how majority first looks to see if statute regulates low value speech: • Does it regulate speech within an existing category? • Note Court reiterates Stevens – absent some sort of “long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition of proscription,” legislature cannot regulate as “low value” [p. 101]. • Is there a different “tradition” that supports creation of a low value category? • What about Justice Thomas’s dissent arguing that parents have had control over who spoke to their children? • If there is a tradition of protecting children from certain kinds of speech (like sexual speech), why can’t we protect them from violence?

  5. Brown v. EMA – the high value speech issue • Application of strict scrutiny • Is there a compelling state interest supporting the statute? • What kind of evidence does the state need? • Who has the better read on the state’s evidence – majority or Justice Breyer? • Does the disagreement itself suggest something about how the issue should be resolved? • Is the law necessary to meet that state interest? Why not? • Should the court consider the argument that this is a TP&M regulation affecting only minors’ ability to buy certain content without parental permission?

  6. Why does SCT view content-based restrictions of high value speech with such disfavor? • Reasons? • Are subject-matter restrictions as threatening to free speech as viewpoint-based restrictions? • E.g. – law banning all discussion of abortion (vs. law banning only pro-choice speech)? What about the content-based TP&M restriction in Brown – is it as concerning? Should it be?

More Related