1 / 5

Feiner v. New York – hostile audiences & the 1st amendment

Feiner v. New York – hostile audiences & the 1st amendment. Cantwell recognized speaker cannot be punished for trying to persuade others about offensive ideas. BUT also that Abusive epithets are not protected (fighting words); and

waltermary
Télécharger la présentation

Feiner v. New York – hostile audiences & the 1st amendment

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. Feiner v. New York – hostile audiences& the 1st amendment • Cantwell recognized speaker cannot be punished for trying to persuade others about offensive ideas. BUT also that • Abusive epithets are not protected (fighting words); and • A speaker who intends to provoke violence or disturbance of good order is not protected – we deal with this situation now • What did Feiner do to cause the Court to conclude that he had “undertaken incitement to riot”? • Why had he “passed the bounds of argument & persuasion” so the police were “justified” in concluding that “a clear and present danger of disorder was threatened?” • Do Feiner’s actions show “intent” to incite the crowd against him? Do they show that the crowd simply didn’t like what he had to say? • Was there a “clear and present danger” of disorder?

  2. Feiner & Police Discretion • SCT notes that absent improper motives, police have great discretion to determine when a speaker is “undertaking to” cause a clear & imminent danger of disorder: • What kind of guidance does the concept of ‘clear & present danger of disorder’ give to the police who are trying to determine whether to intervene and stop a speaker when the crowd is hostile? • Can we readily discern police motives regarding why they shut speakers down? • Where should we look to determine police motives? • How often are such motives overtly “improper”?

  3. Feiner& the Black dissent • Justice Black contends that the police should make “all reasonable efforts to protect” the speaker: • What should such efforts entail? • How does this approach differ from the majority’s focus on whether D was “inciting a riot” and presenting, in the police’s good faith belief, a “clear and present danger” of disorder?

  4. Feiner’s Aftermath – Cox, Edwards, & Gregory • Post-Feiner cases - really a “far cry from Feiner?” • Edwards – 80ish protestors/crowd of 200-300/30 police • Cox – 2000 protestors/crowd of 100-200/80 police • Gregory – 85 protestors/crowd of 1000/? Police • What principles do they establish different from Feiner?

  5. Terry Jones & hostile audiences • In the first incident – p. 543 – Should the police have removed Jones or tried to protect him per the case law we’ve seen? • Is the restraining order “because he was likely to breach to peace” in the immediately succeeding incident (p. 544 top) markedly worse or better from a free speech perspective?

More Related