Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
Dennis v. United States
- Eugene Dennis and ten other leaders of the
- American communist party were indicted under the smith act of 1940 for
- willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach advocate the forceful and violent
- overthrow and destruction of government.
- Does the free speech provision of the 1st
- amendment. May congress prohibit the advocating, advising, teaching, printing
- or distributing of documents that advocate the violent overthrow of government,
- becoming a member of such a group or conspiring to do any of the above?
- free speech provision of 1st amendmen and the liberty provision of
- the due process clause of the 5th amendment. Are sections 2 and 3 of
- the smith act unconstitutional due to vagnance.
- the previously courts finding that the mere fact that the petitioners
- activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the government by force
- and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was
- ready to make the attempt. They also stated that the clear and present danger
- test does not mean that before government can act it must wait until plans have
- been laid and the signal is awaited. The government is allowed to take action
- before it gets to that point. The court held that the statue could be applied
- where there is a clear and present danger which legislature has the right to
Brandenburg v. Ohio
- Clarence brandberg was the leader of a kkk group and
- was arrested tried and convicted under ohio criminal syndicalism statue for
- advocating the duty, necessity or
- propriety of crime, sabotage, violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a
- means of accomplishing industrial or political reform. And for voluntarily
- assembling with any society group or assemblage or persons formed to teach or advocate
- the doctrine of syndicalism. He was convicted appled the the appellate and then
- to the supreme court, was denied the first time and opinion was given in per
- does the ohio statue violate the 1st and
- 14th amendment.
- Opinion- the begin the court believed that the
- evidence shown at trial was not the best some examples of what they stated was
- half of the stuff they said you couldn’t understand what they were saying and
- people in thhee crowd not the speaker himself had weapons. The majority opinion
- stated that there is a difference between advocating and inciting or producing
- imminent lawlessness. A statute which fails to make this distinction as ohios
- does intureds upon the freedoms guaranteed bu the 1st and 14th
- amendment. The act can not be sustained b/c it punishes those who advocate or
- teach violence as a means of change.
Rust v. Sullivan
- Issue- in light of the 1st amendment free
- speech provision does a federal lae unconstitutionally discriminate on the
- basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance
- certain permissible goals if in advancing those goals it necessarily
- discourages alternative goals?
- Issue- in light of the liberty provision of the due
- process clause of the 5th amendment. Does a federal statue violate a
- women’s right to choose an abortion if it prohibits funds from going to family
- planning services that provide abortion counseling that encourage or advocate
- abortion or if it requires that recipient programs be physically and
- financially separate from abortion activities?
- Difference between right to abortion and
- the right to financial assistance for abortion.
- Prohibit counseling, performing and
- advocacy of abortion. The advocacy of abortion is not illegal action it is
- legal through the roe vs. wade edcision.
Gitlow v. New York
- Gitlow was arrested a tried under the new York
- criminal anarchy act of 1902 that prohibited the advocacy of criminal anarchy. The doctrine that organized
- governments should be overthrown by force or violence or by assassination of
- the executive head or of any of the executive officlas of government or by any
- unlawful means. Gotlows crime was punishing a phamflet called left wing manifesto proclaiming the
- inevitability of a proletarian revolution. Although no evidence was shown at
- trial that the publication had led to any unlawful action gitlow was convicted
- and given the maximum sentence of 5 to 10 years in prison.
- Issue: in light of the free speech provision of the
- 1st amendment as applied to the states throught the liberty
- provision of the 14th amendment.. may a state prohibit the
- advocating, advising or teaching of violent overthrow of government.
- Extra- not only may congress, but the states may
- also. Majority opinion belived he was advocating and urging people to overthrow
- the government. He violated the state law and if people want to change
- government they can go to the ballot.
Cohen v. California
- : paul Robert cohen was convicted in los angleos for
- violating part of California penal code section 415 which prohibits maliciously
- and willfully disturbing the peace or
- quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct. He was given 30 days
- imprisonment. The reason being tat on april 1968 the defendant was observed in
- the los anglos county courthouse wearing a jacket that said fuck the
- draft.there were women and children present around him. The defendeant did not
- engage nor threaten to enage in nor did anyone as the result of his conduct in
- fact commit or threaten to commit any act of violence. The defendant did not
- make nay loud or unsual noise, nor was there any evidence that he uttered any
- sound prioir to his arrest.
- Issue: in light of the free speech provision of the
- 1st amendment and the 14th amendment liberty due process
- clause. May a state prohibit as
- offensive conduct the public display of an offensive word on a persons
- -California was punishing speech not conduct. (
- teacher feels otherwise).
- -Statue violats cohens ffreedom of speech. Even
- though the word is offensive when used in a political content the word
- empahizses his feelings towards to draft. And the word was used in an emotional
- -California also did not have a compelling state
- interest, so it does not truph his 1st amendment right.
What would you like to do?
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview