Title: 14-01pp.496
1. In Branzburg v. Hayes the Court ruled that _______.
2. As a general rule the Court has upheld content regulations of the press.
3. New York Times v. United .States. virtually eradicated _______.
4. The term Prior Restraint means that _______.
5. Which All of the following is not an exception that may allow the government to invoke prior
restraint?
6. When it comes to content regulation, _______.
7. In Roth the Court ruled that Community Standards are based on _______.
8. According to the Court in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, an item is not deemed obscene if it
_______.
9. In Miller the Court set which standard for determining the value of a work?
10. Which justice could not define obscenity but knew it when he/she saw it?
11. According to New York Times v. Sullivan, a public official must prove _______ to sustain a
libel claim:
12. Libel and obscenity _______.
13. Why has the Court had a difficult time setting libel standards?
14. Prior to 1964, _______.
15. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition the Court ruled that virtual pornography maybe
prohibited by the government.
16. In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Court struck the Communications Decency
Act because it _______.
17. In United .States. v. Williams, the Court ruled that the PROTECT Act was _______.
18. Reno indicates the Court views the Internet as _______.
19. How did Congress respond to the Court’s decision in Reno?
20. Explain the standard the Court set out for determining prior restraint in Near v. Minnesota
and the exceptions that might make government restraint necessary.
21. Why did the framers believe that freedom of press was so fundamental to the new nation?
22. What rationale did the Court use to deny the reporter’s privilege in Branzburg v. Hayes?
23. Explain the three prongs of the Hicklin test for discerning if material is obscene. Is this a
strict or lenient test? Why?
24. Explain the three prongs of the Roth test for discerning if material is obscene. Is this a strict
or lenient test? Why?
25. How did Miller alter the Roth test?
26. Describe the standard the Court set out for proving libel in Sullivan.
27. How is the standard for proving libel different between public figures and private citizens?
28. How are cases involving child pornography different from typical obscenity cases?
29. How has the Court applied its obscenity law to depictions of acts of violence or cruelty?
30. Why did Congress pass the Communications Decency Act in 1996? Why did the ACLU (and
others) oppose the law?
31. Did Ashcroft v. ACLU [I] settle the issue of internet pornography regulation? Why or why
not?
32. Why did the Court strike the Child Online Protection Act in Ashcroft [II]?
33. How did the Court deal with the issue of filtering software in libraries in United States v.
American Library Association?
34. Why were Justices Kennedy and Breyer slightly concerned with the Court’s decision in
United .States. v. American Library Association and therefore filed a concurring opinion?
35. Despite the fact that the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging
the freedom . . . of the press,” the Supreme Court has recognized the need to limit the press in
certain instances. Explain the Court’s willingness to place restrictions on the press, and under
what circumstances such restrictions are warranted. Also, discuss the distinctions made by the
Court between different types of media. Is the Court more or less willing to restrict the First
Amendment rights of radio, TV, or print journalism? How has the Court dealt with the issue of
prior restraint? In what circumstances is prior restraint allowed?
36. Under what conditions has the Court been willing to allow content in the press to be
restricted? Does the form of the media matter? How has the Court dealt with cases involving
special rights for the media? Has the Court been willing to recognize that reporters enjoy greater
freedoms than others?
37. Potter Stewart noted that he did not know how to define obscenity but he knew it when he
saw it. The Court since then has obviously taken a different view, and has tried to define what is
obscene and what is not. Trace the history of obscenity standards as they changed from Roth to
Miller. Along with explaining how overall doctrine changed between these cases, you should
look at several particular issues. First, explain the specific changes in the definition of obscenity.
Second, consider the evolution of what a “community” is according to the Court. Third, discuss
the evolution of who must be affected in order for a work to be considered obscene (i.e.,
children, adults, specific groups, and so on). Finally, explain the distinction between the
obscenity standards of a work being “utterly without redeeming social value” and a work lacking
any “serious artistic, political, or scientific value.”
38. The Supreme Court has made clear that the standards for determining libel differ between
public and private people. Explain the rationale for this difference. Be sure to use support from
39. Beginning in 1997 the Court began to face questions about regulating media on the Internet.
How, if at all, do these cases differ from the print media cases decided in Roth, Miller, and
Ferber? Should these cases be decided differently, or is the medium not important and the same
standards apply? Why or why not?
40. Why was the Court unwilling to declare that virtual child pornography could be regulated in
the same way as actual child pornography? How did it alter this decision in U.S. v Williams?
41. In January 2012 a new exhibit came to the St. Louis Art Museum. The exhibit contained,
among other things, photos of nude men and women depicted in a variety of poses, photos of
adults engaged in various sexual activities, and pictures of several nude men standing very close
to one another. Finally, there were several pictures that resembled recent advertisements by a
famous clothing designer. This last set of photos portrayed scantily dressed teenagers who were
also posed in allegedly “erotic” poses.
The City Commission on Decency reviewed the exhibit as it was being constructed in the
museum. This commission was set up in the early 1980s as a response to the growing use of “sex
in art.” It is the duty of the commission to review any potentially obscene or indecent art exhibits
that may be shown before the exhibits can be open to the public. While the commission has the
power only to review exhibits and make recommendations to the mayor about what it believes to
be obscene or indecent material, the mayor has always followed its rulings. The decisions of the
commission are based on the Public Standards of Decency found in St. Louis Statute 4.5.7.
After a public hearing where the new exhibit was described in detail to a group of interested
citizens, the Commission on Decency made two recommendations. First, the photographs of the
adult males and the teenage children should not be a part of the exhibit. In short, they should be
taken down before the exhibit could open to the public. Second, the commission recommended
that the exhibit be open only to citizens over the age of eighteen; even with the consent of an
adult, any person under eighteen should not be allowed to enter the special exhibit area. A
seventeen-year-old senior at a local high school sued along with the artist who created the
exhibit. Both claimed their First Amendment rights had been violated.
The case comes to the Supreme Court with a variety of issues, but with one main question: Does
St. Louis Statute 4.5.7 violate the First Amendment rights of the artist as well as of the children
who want to see the exhibit? Why or why not?
42. In 2012 a number of homeless people were allowed to live on Ex Ante University property,
which led to disputes with neighboring businesses and home owners. The West Minster Herald
published a series of articles describing the dispute. The articles called the university a
“sensuality” school (because it offers courses in sensuality, “lifestyles,” “niceness and
meanness,” and “mutual pleasurable stimulation of the human nervous system”). The newspaper
also quoted a former student as saying that Ex Ante students were given illegal drugs and
coerced into prostitution. Finally, the articles noted that the university had filed a libel lawsuit
over the former student’s allegations.
Ex Ante University sued the Herald and the reporters who wrote the articles, arguing that the
newspaper libeled the school. The paper argued that it is protected by a state law that provides
for quick dismissals of meritless lawsuits intended to silence free speech, and that this is such a
case. The school’s lawyers argued that the law is intended to protect ordinary citizens and not the
news media against meritless lawsuits. They also claimed that the Herald’s statements were
false.
As a justice on the Supreme Court how would you rule in this case?