ETHICS
I. Results or Rules?
A. Consequentialist
B. Deontological
II. Theories
A. Metaethics
B. Normative
1. Utilitarianism
a. Act
b. Rule
2. Kantianism
3. Contractarianism
C. Applied Ethics
THE NATURE OF LAW AND REGULATION
I. Where Does Law Come From
A. Natural Law
B. Positive Law
C. Neo-Positive Law
II. Current Perspectives on the Law
A. Zechariah Chafee
B. Alexander Meiklejohn
C. Jerome Barron
D. Thomas Emerson
E. Vincent Blasi
III. Ways To Make Laws (Not) Fail
IV. Why Do We Do What We Do?
A. Morality
B. Legality
V. Where does Law Come From
A. Constitutional Law
B. Statutory Law
C. Administrative Law
D. Common Law
VI. Interpreting the Constitution
A. Absolutist
B. Preferred position
C. Presumption of constitutionality
D. Compelling state interest
E. Over-breadth
VII. Evaluating the Constitutionality of the Law
A. Strict Scrutiny
1. Does the law advance a compelling state interest
2. Is the law narrowly tailored
3. Is the law the least restrictive necesssary
B. Intermediate Scrutiny
1. Does the law involve an important state interest
2. Is the state interest furthered by the law
C. Rational Basis
1. Is the law rationally related to a legitimate government interest
VIII. Who Does What to Whom
A. Plaintiff (petitioner, complainant)
B. Defendant (respondent, accused)
C. Appellant (plaintiff in error)
D. Appellee (defendant in error, respondent)
IX. Uh-Oh, You Lose
A. Injunctions
B. Restraining orders
X. The Appellate Process
A. Trial courts and appellate courts
B. Federal courts
1. District courts
2. Court of appeals
3. U.S. Supreme Court
XI. Reading the Law and the Citation System
A. Supreme Court cases
B. Court of Appeals cases
C. Federal District Court cases
D. United States Code
E. Law Reviews
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN ACTION
I. Basic Restraints on Speech and Action
A. Background
1. Treason
2. Sedition
3. Seditious libel
B. Historical development
1. Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)
2. The Civil War (1860-1864)
3. World War I
C. Cases and comments
1. Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
2. Gitlow v. New York (1925)
3. Whitney v. California (1927)
4. Smith Act (1940)
5. Dennis v. U.S. (1951)
6. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
PRIOR RESTRAINT
I. William Blackstone and the Commentaries
II. Social and political control
III. Cases and Comments
A. Near v. Minnesota (1931)
B. Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971)
C. Pentagon Papers (1971)
D. Aviation Week and Space Technology
E. United States v. Progressive (1979)
TIME, PLACE AND MANNER RESTRAINTS
I. Issues
A. Content based v. content neutral
B. Symbolic speech
C. Public facilities and the public forum
D. Time, place and manner
II. Cases and Comments
A. Kovacs v. Cooper (1949)
B. United States v. O'Brien (1968)
C. Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)
D. Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad (1975)
E. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeyer (1988)
F. Texas v. Johnson (1989)
G. Barnes v. Glenn Theatre (1991)
H. Krishna Consciousness v. Lee (1992) ; Lee v. Krishna Consciousness (1992)
I. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette(1995)
III. Institutional Concerns
A. Schools
1. Public schools
a. Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)
b. Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)
c. Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)
d. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeyer (1988)
e. Westside Community School District v. Mergens (1990)
B. Colleges and universities
DEFAMATION
I. Definition:
A. Any false statement that tends to
1. Bring a person into public hatred, contempt, ridicule
2. Cause a person to be shunned or avoided
3. Injure a person in their business or occupation
B. It is libelous per se if any of the following conditions exist:
1. You accuse someone of a crime and the person is innocent
2. Statements or insinuations of insanity or loathsome disease
3. Statements or assertions of a lack of capacity to conduct
business or profession
4. Any statement which tends to bring a person into public
hatred, contempt or scorn
C. Group libel
II. How do you do it?
A. Publication
1. Dissemination to a third party
2. Each person can be sued
3. You do not need to have originated the libel to be sued
B. Identification
1. Plaintiff has to prove someone believed the reference was to
him/her
2. That's why editors insist on complete identification, with no
errors
C. Defamation
1. If there is no defamation, there is no libel
2. Any false statement that tends to
a. Bring a person into public hatred, contempt, ridicule
b. Cause a person to be shunned or avoided
c. Injure a person in their business or occupation
III. Fault
A. Types
1. Negligence - Failure to do something you have a duty to do
2. Malice - Published with reckless disregard for the truth
B. Damages
1. Compensatory
2. Punitive
C. Strict liability
IV. Defenses
A. Major
1. Truth
a. Plaintiff must show the elements of libel are present
b. Defendant must prove the statements are true, according to
the rule of evidence
c. If the statement is true, then the motives for publication
are irrelevant.
d. If the statement is false, then the key issue becomes
fault (negligence or malice)
2. Privilege
a. Types
i. Absolute
ii. Qualified
b. Sen. William Proxmire's "Golden Fleece Award"
c. Section 315 Privilege
3. Fair Comment
a. There is no such thing as a false opinion
b. Protects the expression of opinion about the public
performance of those who voluntarily place themselves
before the public
c. Protects expression if:
i. the expression is based on fact
ii. the expression is a critique of public performance,
not private life
B. Minor Defenses
1. Neutral Reporting
2. Right of Reply
3. Consent
4. Statute of Limitations
V. Cases
A. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
B. Curtis Publishing v. Butts (1967)
C. AP v. Walker (1967)
D. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971)
E. Gertz V. Welch (1974)
F. Time v. Firestone (1976)
G. Herbert v. Lando (1976)
PRIVACY
I. Background
A. Privacy in American life
1. Personal privacy
2. Location Privacy
3. Information Privacy
B. Rights v. Laws
II. Issues
A. Invasion of Solitude
1. Wiretapping
2. Listening to private conversations
3. Photography
B. Publication of Private Matters
1. "The Truth Can Hurt"
2. Public records
C. False Light
1. Photography
2. Fictionalization
D. Misappropriation
1. Name
2. Likeness/Image
E. Right to Publicity
1. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard (1967)
2. The Lone Ranger
3. Columbia Broadcasting v. DeCosta (1967)
4. Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets (1983)
III. Defenses
A. Newsworthiness
B. Consent
IV. Case
A. Time v. Hill (1967)
V. USA PAtriot Act
A. Background
B. Analysis
A. Section 212 - Service providers
B. Section 213 - Delaying notice of execution of warrant
C. Section 214 - Pen Registers / Trap and Trace
D. Section 215 - Access to records
E. Section 220 - National subpoenas
F. Section 507 - Disclosure of educational records
C. When "they" show up at your door
D. FISA Court
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
I. Philosophical Background
A. Public Interest, Convenience and Necessity
B. Scarcity vs. Access
C. Technology vs. Content
II. Rules and Regulations
A. Fairness Doctrine
B. Personal Attack Rules
C. United States Code
1. 303(m)(1)(D): Powers & Duties
2. 312(a)(7): Administrative Sanctions
3. 315: Candidates for Public Office
4. 326: Censorship
5. 544(d)(1): Regulation of Services
6. 558: Criminal & Civil Liability
7. 559: Obscene Programming
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, RECORDS AND MEETINGS
I. Philosophical Background
A. Informed Debate
B. Public Access v. News Media Access
C. Why Do You Want To Know That?
D. Computer Access v. Paper Access
E. Government Records v. Business Records
F. Access to the Judicial Process
II. Historical Background
A. George Washington and the St. Claire Disaster
B. Ike and the U-2
C. JFK and the Bay of Pigs
III. Tennessee
A. Public records law
1. What is available
2. Confidential Records
3. Denial of Access
B. Open Meting (Sunshine) laws
1. Access
2. Notice of Public Meetings
3. Records of Meetings
4. Nullification
IV. Federal Freedom of Information Act
1. Overview
A. Any person
B. All Federal Agencies
C. FOI Officer
D. Response Time
2. Coverage
3. Making the request
4. Exemptions
A. National security
B. Internal agency/personnel rules
C. Information specifically exempted
D. Trade secrets
E. Internal policy discussions
F. Personal privacy matters
G. Law enforcement investigations
H. Federally regulated banks
I. Oil and gas well information
V. Federal Privacy Act
VI. Federal Open Meeting Law
Mass Media and National Security
I. Access to Information
II. Right to Publish Information
III. Cases
A. United States v. Marchetti (1972)
B. Phillippi v. CIA (1976)
C. Morland v. Sprecher (1979)
D. Snepp v. United States (1980)
E. United States v. Morison, (1985)
F. Nation Magazine v. Department of Defense (1991)
G. Flynt v. Rumsfeld (2004)
H. Doe v. Gonzales (2007)
THE INTERNET: SPECIAL CASES AND SPECIAL ISSUES
I. Overview
A. Technical issues
B. The Global Village
II. You ended up where?
A. Regulatory problems
B. Blocking software
III. Issues
A. Jurisdiction
1. Active v. Passive
2. Levels of interactivity
B. CyberCrime
1. Computers as targets
2. Computers as storage devices
3. Computers as communication tools
C. Content Regulation
1. CDA - Communication Decency Act - Reno v. ACLU (1997)
2. COPPA - Children's On-Line Privacy Protection Act of 1998 - 15 USC 6501-6506
3. COPA - Child On-Line Protection Act - ACLU v. Reno (Reno III) (2000)
4. CPPA - Child Pornography Protection Act - Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
5. CIPA - Children's Internet Protection Act - United States v. American Library Association (2003)
D. Privacy
1. Personal
2. Corporate
3. Government
THE PUZZLE OF PORNOGRAPHY
I. Societal issues
A. Background
1. Sexuality and society
2. Pornography - erotic, sexually stimulating
3. Obscenity - pornography that is offensive to society
4. Indecent - who knows??
B. What the law says . . . and doesn't say
1. Obscenity - Not protected
2. Pornography - Protected
C. Some definitional problems
II. Effects
A. Theoretical Foundations
1. Suggestions and Causes
2. Causes, Effects and Correlations
3. Causal Ordering
B. Emotional and Physical Effects
1. Cathartic
2. Accumulative
III. The Meese Commission
IV. Case Histories
A. Reg. v. Hicklin (1868)
B. Comstock (1873)
C. Roth v. US (1957)
D. Ginzburg v. US (1966)
E. Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
F. Redrup v. New York (1967)
G. Miller v. California (1973)
COPYRIGHT
I. Philosophy and Background
II. Fair Use
III. Cases
A. Baker v. Selden (1879)
B. International News Service v. Associated Press (1918)
C. Fortnightly v. United Artists (1968)
D. Teleprompter v. CBS (1974)
E. Sony v. Universal City (1984)
F. Mills Music v. Snyder (1985)
G. Basic Books v. Kinkos (1991)
H. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (1994)
COMMERCIAL SPEECH
I. Philosophical Background
A. Mass Production
B. Distribution
C. Marketing
D. Advertising
II. Major criticisms
A. Persuades us to buy goods we don't need
B. Appeals to emotion rather than intellect
C. Biased
D. Conflicting claims
E. Repetitious
F. Vulgar
G. Subliminal advertising
III. The Development of Regulation
A. History
1. Laissez-faire capitalism
2. Pure Food and Drug Act (1906)
3. Federal Trade Commission (1914)
4. Wheeler-Lea Amendment (1938)
5. False, Deceptive and Unfair Ads
B. Current Lack of Rigor
1. First Amendment protection
2. Political climate of deregulation
IV. Cases
A. Valentine v. Christensen (1942)
B. Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
C. Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
D. Warner Lambert v. FTC (1977)
E. First National Bank v. Bellotti (1978)
F. Liquormart v. Rhode Island (1996)
FREE PRESS / FAIR TRIAL
I. The Conflict
A. First Amendment
B. Sixth Amendment
II. Historical Concerns
A. Ruth Snyder execution photograph (1928)
B. Lindbergh kidnapping trial (1935)
C. Julius & Ethel Rosenberg (1951)
III. Cameras in the Courtroom
IV. Cases and Comments
A. Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
B. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)
C. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)
D. Chandler v. Florida (1981)