Lecture Notes for Oct 21, 2008

Commercial speech and the first ammendment: Commercial speech: speech related to the economic interest of the audiance or purposes of a commercial transaction Commercial speech doctrine: -is the speech that is being restriceted promote economic or commercial transaction If yes: speech is protected unless false or misleading or pertaining to an inlllegal poduct or service If no: no protection Even if speech is protected, government can still regulate speech in certain cases if they can prove: -A substantial interest to justify the law -Evidence that directly and materialy advances their interest -can provide a resonable fit between the means and ends. EX: Pitt News -pa act 199 prohibits college papers from advertising the price and availibility of alcohol. Pitt news files a suit claiming 1st ammendment rights of the speakers, audiance and the paper have been violated -ads fit into commercial speech and therefore have limited protection -courts rule in favr of pitt news and strike down law. State was unable to prove connection between law and a reduction in drinking and alternatives were availible that restrict less speech. -Balin vs Redman Washington: -City of redman prohibits portable out door signs - court rules in favor of balin Federal Trade commision and speech regulation -ftc regulates deceptive ads ( ads must have prior substaniation of all claims, must be truthful and not mis leading) -How ads can be misleading: --omisson of relevant info -implication of somthing false -unclear or unprominant disclaimers -Prior substaniation: - resonable basis for making any and all express or implied claims (health and safety products require scientific evidence) Media Violence and liability issues:( can the a manufacturer be sued because a product causes injury, can we stop minors from purchasing these types of products in the first place) Violence in the media has some first ammendment protection Brandenburg vs Ohio: -randenburg was a member of the kkk and made a state ment, " we are not a revenge based organization, but if our president or congress or our supreme court continues to supress the white caucasian race it's possible there might be some revenge taken." -prosecuted under ohio law because his speech may cause violence to occur - court rules in favor of brandenburg and creates the brandenburg test. The Brandenburg Test: Violent speech is protected unless the speech in question is directed to inciting or producing imminent, lawles action and it is likely to produce such action. All for points must be proven for speech to not be protected Examples under the brandenburg test Natural born killers- oliver stone movie; two people interpret characters from the movie and shoot at a convince store clerk. Brandenburg test: Was the intent of the movie to have people go out and kill? no Was the action iminent? no WAs the action unlawful- yes but it does not matter as the other points are false Is it likely to incite the action: no most people would not follow this cause of action. Negligence Duty: the defendant has a duty of care owed to the plaintiff to prevent reasonably foreseeable injury from occuring. (it is assumed that every person owes a duty of care to every other person) Breach: the defendant breached the duty of care because they did not take resonable steps to prevent the foreseeable injury Cause- this breach of duty causes injury Harm- The plaintiff did indeed suffer an injury Example Olivia N vs NBC Content Based laws:Laws that single out a particular topic, subject or idea for regulation but do not regualter other topics, subjects or ideas Upholding a content based law: Laws are held to strict scrutiny. Government must prove a Compelling interest and it must be the least restrictive means of limiting speech. Content Neutral laws (time place and manner) do not target a specific type of speech: upholding a content neutral law: laws are held to intermediate scrutiny, government must prove a substantial interst, speech was not completely banned, means reasonably fit and serve the ends (doesnt have to be least restrictive means)