content-based; PR; vagueness

1. JOUR 430
Communication Law

2. What kinds of speech
should be protected?
Are there some forms of speech
that have little or no value?
Speech Value Scale?
High value v. intermediate value v.
low value speech

3. Content-Based v. Content
Neutral
Content-based regulations/restrictions = laws
that suppress or disadvantage speech because
of its content
Regulate speech based on its SUBJECT-
MATTER OR VIEWPOINT
Examples: “No Religious-based speech”; “No
speech supporting gun laws”
If its content based, is it protected?
Obscenity, Child Porn, Defamation
If it is, courts apply strict scrutiny : (1)
Compelling govt interest and (2) Narrowly
tailored.

4. Vagueness and
Overbreadth
Vague = When a reasonable person could not
discern what speech or conduct is prohibited
e.g. Vagrancy law: prohibits “persons wandering or
strolling around from place to place without any lawful
purpose”
Overbroad = law is so broad that is inhibits
freedom more than is necessary to achieve legit gov
purpose.
e.g. prohibit picketing ‘‘for the purpose of hindering,
delaying, or interfering with’’ business (here, it chills
protected speech, and law is not “narrowly” drafted to
proscribe the harm the drafters intended).

5. First Amendment
Violation?The Daily Breeze Press obtained background
screening files on recent Torrance police recruits (up
to 200). For the past year, the Press has reported on
the police dept.’s hiring of recruits who had personal
ties to top officials, including the police chief, despite
criminal histories of violence or other legal matters.
A anonymous source had leaked the background files
to the Press. The police union has filed a motion in
court to halt publication of info found in the
background files.

6. Prior Restraint recap
NY Times v. U.S. (1971)
Before the gov can issue a PR,
gov must make a showing that
publication “will surely result in
direct, immediate and irreparable
damage to our nation or its
people”

7. Content-Neutral Speech
Rules/laws that regulate the TIME, PLACE, and
MANNER (T/P/M) of speech as opposed to its
content.
*Intermediate Scrutiny*
(1) Is the law content-neutral? T/P/M (if its
content-based, strict scrutiny kicks in)
(2) is narrowly tailored to serve
(3) a significant government interest—(e.g. the
protection of residential privacy) and
(4) leaves open ample alternative channels of
communication for the dissemination of
messages.

8. Speech Forums
To determine the limits (if any) may be placed on
protected speech, we must first analyze the
“place” of the speech
Public Forum, Limited Public Forum, and
Non-public forum
PUBLIC FORUM
Places traditionally used for expressive activity,
dialogue, and exchange of ideas (receive
protection to the fullest extent under the
Constitution)
i.e. parks, sidewalks, public streets

9. Speech Forums
LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM
Property the state has opened for use by the
public (treated like a traditional public forum)
Examples: university facilities, local schools that
provide forums/spaces for meetings, dialogue,
and exchange of ideas.
NONPUBLIC FORUM
Private property, Airports, Post-office, prisons,
military bases
Here, the state can restrict speech, as long as
the law is reasonable AND VIEWPOINT
NEUTRAL)

10. Frisby v. Schultz

11. Frisby v. Schultz
Original town ordinance completely bans
picketing "before or about" any residence
“except labor picketing”
Constitutional?
What is the purpose of the town’s ban?
“the protection and preservation of the
home”; “that members of the community
enjoy in their homes and dwellings a feeling of
well-being, tranquility, and privacy.”

12. Frisby v. Shultz
Should there be a free speech exception
outside a person’s home? Even if you are
on a public sidewalk?
What if you live in a large mansion, with
large front lawn and wall?
Steven’s Dissent: This law goes to far –
OVERBROAD? Example: “GET WELL,
CHARLIE BROWN” – this would be
prohibited?

13. McCullen v. Coakley
(2014)

14. McCullen v. Coakley
(2014)

15. McCullen v. Coakley
(2014)
A Massachusetts law created a “buffer-zone”
around every health (and abortion) clinic in the
state
The law bars everyone from “staying” in fixed
buffer zones with exceptions from employees,
people going in and out
BUT, these areas are generally in public
sidewalks.
Protestors and advocates engage in “gentle
persuading”
Should the law be upheld or is this an
infringement on First Amendment rights?

16. McCullen v. Coakley
(2014)
According to Chief Justice Roberts, protestors (or
“counselors”) can engage in “gentle persuasion”
carried out on public sidewalks
Is free speech infringed with a buffer-zone? If
you only can see and hear vociferous objections,
has “gentle persuasion” been muffled?
USSC deems the law “overbroad”