CHILD PORNOGRAPHY--SEXUAL SPEECH

In Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61 (1981), the court held that a law regulating an adult bookstore in the commercial zone is constitutionally invalid on the over breadth challenge.
The court stated the precedent cases firmly establish the appellant’s standing to raise an over breadth challenge.
The court reasoned that the law must restrict significantly more speech than the Constitution allows to be controlled thus a law must be substantially overbroad;
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VAGUENESS AND OVER BREADTH?
In Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), the court held the scandal sheet “Gaglaw” was unconstitutional censorship.
In New York Times Co v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the court held that the national security laws regulating disclosure of information revealed in the pentagon papers were void for vagueness.
The court discussed what circumstances, if any, would justify a court order preventing a publication to protect national security. In addition, the court discussed what difference, if any, would it make if there were a statute authorizing a prior restraint.
A federal district court issued an injunction to keep a magazine from publishing an article on how to build a hydrogen bomb.
The case, however was dismissed while on appeal because others published the same information in other places.
In Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), the court discussed whether the plaintiff accused of murder has a right to a fair trial under the First and Sixth Amendments using the clear and present danger test.
The court defined the clear and present danger test as the gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.
The court considered several factors in the clear and present danger test such as the nature and extent of pretrial news coverage; whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pretrial publicity; and how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger.
Furthermore, the court considered whether the record supports the entry of a prior restraint on publication, one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence.
In Alexander v. U.S., 509 U.S. 544 (1993), the court discussed the validity of obscenity laws in adult entertainment under the Eighth Amendment.
The court defined the prior restraint to describe administrative and judicial orders and permanent injunctions. In addition, the court orders that actually forbid speech activities are classic examples of prior restraints.

HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED LICENSING AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT?
In Lovell v. City of Griffin G.A., 303 U.S. 444 (1938), the court held that the laws regulating religious flyers were over breadth under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
In Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), the court discussed whether the regulation of door-to-door religious flyers requiring registering violated the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the village's interests in protecting its residents from fraud and its desire to prevent criminals from posing as canvassers in order to defraud its residents were sufficient bases on which to justify the regulation.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED COMPELLED SPEECH?
In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the court stated that symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas
In addition, the court noted that the compulsory flag salute and pledge requires affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind.
The court reasoned that the expressive component of a law school’s actions is not created by the conduct itself, except by the speech that accompanies it. The fact that such explanatory speech is necessary is strong evidence that the conduct at issue here is not so inherently expressive that it warrants protection.
The government has placed a condition on the recipient of the subsidy rather than on a particular program or service thus effectively prohibiting the recipient from engaging in the protected conduct outside the scope of the federally funded program.

XVIII
PREDETERMINATIONS
Reincarnated carnation
Covered in thorns the son rose
Buried in a bed of wholly soil
The seed survives drought
Fertilized through sublimation
The heavenly gardeners smile at the hybrid
The ghostly earth covers the roots
Traveling branches surrounds the sky
Surrendering silence as the leaves fall
Prolific passions poise persistence
With the blackout coming soon
As the convention becomes in tune

SECTION R
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED THE TYPES OF UNPROTECTED AND LESS PROTECTED SPEECH?
The Supreme Court identified some categories of unprotected speech that the government can prohibit and punish. In specific, the court provides examples of categories of unprotected speech including incitement of illegal activity, fighting words and obscenity.
The court states that the government generally can regulate commercial speech if intermediate scrutiny is satisfied.
Moreover, the court reasoned that commercial speech is valued less and thus is more susceptible to government regulation
In addition, the courts defined these categories based on the subject matter of the speech. Therefore, commercial speech represents an exception under the typical rule that content-based regulation must meet strict scrutiny.
The court stated that all government actions must satisfy the rational basis test and these areas of regulated speech would be upheld.
In R.A.V v. City of Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the court held that generally content-based distinctions must meet strict scrutiny.
The court reasoned that the definitions of incitement or obscenity are enormously important because they determine whether the government can punish the speech or whether the expression is protected under the Fifth Amendment.
The court noted that some commentators have argued that all such advocacy of illegal conduct should be deemed unprotected by the First Amendment. In specific, the American legal scholar Robert Bork contended that advocacy of law violations is a call to set aside the results that political speech has produced. The process of the discovery and spread of political truth is damaged or destroyed when the minority involved in law enforcement defeats the outcome. Thus, the practice of political truth is impossible or less effective.
The court contended that the strong presumption in favor of protecting speech is justified in safeguarding the advocacy of illegality unless there is a substantial likelihood of imminent harm. The court defined the aforementioned as the clear and present danger test. In addition, the advocacy of a legal violation or even civil disobedience is seen as a powerful way of expressing a message. But, the court never has taken the position that such speech is completely protected by the First Amendment and the government is limited to punishing the criminal acts themselves.
The court discussed the application of the reasonableness test to speech associated with the advocacy of illegality to determine if an average person in the United States would reasonably conclude that a substantial likelihood of imminent harm resulting from the advocacy.
Furthermore, the court discussed the danger test as a risk formula approach assessing the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such an invasion of free speech as necessary to avoid the danger.
The court held that the advocacy of an illegality can be punished only if there is a likelihood of imminent illegal conduct and the speech is directed to causing imminent illegality.
In Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the court held that the character of every act depends upon the circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent.
In Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919), the court held that the U.S. Congress is warranted in setting a limit to the expression of opinion where private rights are not concerned only when there is the present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about.
The court discussed the issue of deciding whether speech is advocacy of doctrine or advocacy to action.
Thus in many instances the decision is likely to be a brief distinction based entirely on how a judge chooses to characterized the speech.
Furthermore, Justice Holmes stated that “every idea is an incitement,”
In Masses Publishing Co. v. Pattern, 244 F. 535 (1917), the court reasoned that if one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems that one should not be held responsible to have attempted to cause its violation.
Here, the court appeared to be much more protective of speech.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the court held that Ohio law violated protected rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The court discussed when the government may punish the advocacy of illegality.
The court provided three distinct elements of the Brandenburg test including intent, imminence, and likelihood of an imminent lawless action.
In Brandenburg, the intent standard is more speech-protective than the risk formula approach, which contained no temporal element.
The Brandenburg test effectively made the temporal element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.
Here, the Ku Klux Klan Speech referred to the possibility of revenge against niggers, Jews, and those who supported them. In addition, the speech claimed that the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. The defendant was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech, he made.
The court described that no one was present other than the participants and the reporters who made the film.
The court ruled that the case failed the clear and present danger test.
In addition, the court reasoned that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produced such action.
The court concluded that a statute, which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly, intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Furthermore, it sweeps within its condemnation of speech that our Constitution has immunized from government control.
Moreover, the court confronted a statute that, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid on pain of criminal punishment assembly with other merely to advocate the described Amendments.
In Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), the court discussed whether the 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act of California violated the due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court held that it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment and upheld Whitney's conviction. Justice Sanford wrote for the seven-justice majority opinion, and invoked the Holmes test of clear and present danger.
Here, the defendant, was convicted under the state's 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party, a group the state charged was devoted to teaching the violent overthrow of government. The defendant claimed that it had not been her intention, nor that of other organizers, that the party became an instrument of violence.
In specific, the court cited the group stating that “We’ll take the fucking street later.”
Although, the speech was not imminent, the court stated that the mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment.
Under this law, an individual can be convicted for incitement only if it is proven that there was a likelihood of imminent illegal conduct and if the speech was directed at causing imminent illegal conduct.
The court noted that Brandenburg is the Supreme Court’s most speech protective formulation of an incitement test.
In addition, the court defined an imminent harm as the likelihood of producing illegal action and an intent to cause imminent illegality.
Moreover, the court stated that none of the earlier test had contained an intent requirement, and none ever had so clearly stated a requirement for a likelihood of imminent harm.
Therefore, the court reasoned that on a doctrinal level it is puzzling that the court presented the Brandenburg test as if followed from the formulation presented in Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 (1951), rather than as a substantial expansion in the protection of speech. In Dennis the court expressly denied that there was a requirement for proof of an imminent danger of likely harm.
Justice Sanford declared the state has the power to punish those who abuse their rights to speech by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow. In general, the court stated that if words have a bad tendency then they can be punished.
Furthermore, the court conceded that the prior cases all were issued in tense time where there were strong pressures to suppress speech.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED FIGHTING WORDS, THE HOSTILE AUDIENCE, AND THE PROBLEM OF RACIST SPEECH?
The court discussed when a speech may be punished because of the risk that is may provoke an audience into using illegal force against the speaker.
The court responded that “fighting words” is a type of speech that is directed at another and likely to provoke a violent response that is not protected by the First Amendment.
Moreover, the court assesses the reaction of an audience in response to such speech.
The court exemplified a person yelling fire in a crowed place.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED FIGHTING WORDS?
The court held that fighting words are a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the court held that the statute did not violate the defendant’s First Amendment rights because the speech was likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby causing a breach of the peace thus is not protected.
In addition, the court held that the right of free speech is not absolute at all time and under all circumstances particularly involving speech containing insulting or fighting words.
Here, a Jehovah witness was arrested for calling a marshal a “God-damned racketeer” after passing out flyers in public stating that organized religion is a racket.
The defendant contended that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
The court described the New Hampshire statute as such that “no person shall address any offensive derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place nor call him be any offensive or derisive name nor make any noise or exclamation is his presence and hearing with intent to deride offend or annoy him or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.”
The court reasoned that the statute as construed does no more than prohibit the speech directed at another person using words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the speaker including classical fighting words.
The court concluded that a statute narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace within the domain of state.
In addition, the court recognized two situations where speech constitutes fighting words. First, the court defined fighting words to include speech that is likely to cause a violent response against the speaker. Second, the court defined fighting words to include the speech that is an insult likely to inflict immediate emotional harm.
The court narrowed the scope of the fighting words rule to apply only to speech directed at a specific person that is likely to provoke a reasonable person to respond in violence.
Furthermore, the court noted that content-based restrictions of speech are constitutional because the insulting or fighting words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any social value in the search for truth.
In Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972), the court held that the Georgia statute on its face is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The court described the Georgia statute as any person who shall without provocation use towards another and in his presence opprobrious words or abusive language that tends to cause a breach of the peace shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Here, the defendant picketed a building used by army in opposition to the Vietnam War. As police officers moved the defendant away from the building, the defendant commented: “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death,” and “if you ever put your hands on me again ill cut you all to pieces.”
The court held that the statute must be carefully drawn or be authoritatively construed to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible of application to protected expression.
Moreover, the court held that the defendant’s speech is protected even if it uttered in anger.
In addition, the court narrowed fighting words laws as content-based restrictions that require content-based distinctions.
Chief justice Burger dissenting stated that the manner in which the defendant expressed the speech was unprotected.
Justice Blackmun with whom the Chief Justice joins conveyed the language as wildly offensive thus unprotected by the Constitution.
In R.A.V v. City of St Paul Minnesota, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the court held that the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime ordinance was overbroad, proscribing both "fighting words" and protected speech.
Under the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, anyone who places on public or private property; a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Here, the petitioner burned a crudely made cross by taping together broken chair legs in the yard of the petitioner’s African American neighbor.
The court reasoned that because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. The court stated that the law seemingly was based on a judgment that fighting words based on race, religion, or gender are most likely to cause the harms that the fighting words doctrine means to prevent. Furthermore, the court invalidated the statute because it prohibited speech solely based on the subject.
In addition, the court stated that a fighting words law will be upheld only if does not draw content-based distinctions among types of speech such as by prohibiting fighting words based on race but not based on political affiliation.
The court discussed that drawing content-based distinctions is extremely difficult because the government will not forbid all such speech but draw lines.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED SEXUALLY ORIENTED SPEECH?
First, the court defined what is “obscene.”
Second, the court indicated that the First Amendment does not protect child pornography, even if it does not fit within the definition of obscenity.
Third, Governments have tried many techniques ranging from licensing schemes to prohibition of private possession to seizing assets of businesses convicted of violating obscenity laws.
Furthermore, the court contended that obscenity is a category of speech unprotected by the 1st Amendment.
In Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the court held that obscenity is not protected by the 1st Amendment, but more strictly defines what is considered "obscene."
The court discussed that issue of whether the federal obscenity statute violates the provision of the First Amendment.
Here, the defendant was convicted under a federal statute criminalizing the sending of "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" materials through the mail for advertising and selling a publication containing literary erotica and nude photography.
The court defined obscenity as material whose dominant theme, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest to the average person applying contemporary community standards.
Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Black dissenting stated that by these standards, punishment is inflicted for thoughts that do not provoke an overt act nor an antisocial conduct.
Moreover, the tests give the censor free range over a vast domain of material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts.
Justice Brennan defined obscenity as something considered as a whole has a predominant appeal to a shameful or morbid interest in nudity sex or exertions and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters.
In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973), the Supreme Court upheld a state court’s injunction against the showing of obscene films in a movie theatre restricted to consenting adults. Moreover, the court held that the states have a legitimated interest in regulation commerce on obscene material and in regulating exhibition of obscene material in places of public accommodation including so called “adult” theaters from which minors are excluded.
Here, the state court granted a civil injunction barring the defendant’s theaters from showing adult films.
The court reasoned that there are legitimate state interests at stake, not always beyond the government scope, in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles and to passersby.
In addition, the court stated that the obscene material is not protected under the First Amendment.
The court discussed that the sexual conduct that states may regulate within limits be designed to prevent infringement of First Amendment rights.
Justice Brennan Stewart and Marshall dissenting stated that the injunction suppressed sexually oriented expression. Furthermore, the court could not state that the interests of the state apart from the question of juveniles and non-consenting adults are trivial or nonexistent.
Justice Douglas dissenting
In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the court held that obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest. In specific, obscene materials that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Here, the defendant was arrested for the distribution of obscene material through the mail.
The Supreme Court established basic guidelines for the Trier of fact must include:
Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interests; whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary artistic political or scientific value.
In addition, the court determined that it is possible however to give a few plain examples of what a state statute could define for regulation under part b of the standard announced in the opinion. The court included patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts normal or perverted actual or simulated band patently offensive representation or descriptions of masturbation excretory function and lewd exhibition of the genitals.
The court ruled that the statute must appeal to prurient interest and that is decided by a community standard and must be patently offensive.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
In New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), the court held that the compelling state interest in protecting children allows laws prohibiting distribution of images of sexual performances by minors even where content does not meet tests of obscenity.
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), the Court held that the two above provisions were unconstitutional because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech.
Here, the plaintiffs published a book advocating nudist lifestyle with paintings of children in the nude.
The court reasoned that the provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 were overbroad because they abridged the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech. Furthermore, the solicitation of child porn must involve an actual child.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED PROTECTED BUT LOW VALUE SEXUAL SPEECH?
A category of sexual speech that does not meet the test for obscenity and thus is protected by the First Amendment but is deemed to be speech of low value, and thus the government has latitude to regulate such expression.
The court never has defined the contours of this category but it clearly involves sexually explicit material.
In Young v. American Mini Theatres inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976), the Supreme Court upheld a city’s ordinance that limited the number of adult theaters that could be any block and prevented such enterprises from operation in residential areas.
The court discussed the issue of whether the statutory classification is unconstitutional because it is based on the content of communication protected by the First Amendment.
Moreover, the court discussed the question of whether speech is or not protected by the First Amendment often depends on the content of the speech.
Even though the First Amendments protects communication in this area from total suppression we hold that the state may legitimately use the content of these materials as the basis for placing them in a different classification from other motion pictures.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED NUDE DANCING?
The court held nude dancing as a form of conduct that communicates, and applied the test used for regulating symbolic speech whereas “a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the government.
If it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest if the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
Justice Scalia concurring
The challenged regulation must be upheld not because it survives some lower level of First Amendment scrutiny but because as a general law regulation conduct and not specifically directed at expression it is not subject to First Amendment scrutiny at all.
The view that the First Amendment protections of speech and religion are not violated by neutral laws of general applicability that burden these rights.
Furthermore, nude dancing is neither protected nor unprotected.
The court contended that at best we must go through Obrien.
In City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000), the court held that Erie’s ordinance is a content neutral regulation that satisfies the First Amendment.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED THE GOVERNMENTAL TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLING OBSCENITY AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
The court has held the government cannot prohibit or punish the private possession of obscene material although it may outlaw the private possession of child pornography only socially as a whole.
In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the court discussed whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect the private possession of child pornography.
The court held that it is unwilling to extend it.
In Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), the court discussed whether Ohio may constitutionally proscribe the possession and viewing of child pornography or whether our decision in Stanley v. G.A. (1969), compels the contrary result.
Here, the court stated that the four photos in the Osbornes’ home depicted a nude male adolescent posing in a sexually explicit position.
The court reasoned that the First Amendment interest in viewing and possessing child pornography we nonetheless find interest in viewing and possessing child pornography, the court nonetheless found this case distinct from Stanley because the interests justifying the G.A. law at issue in Stanley.
Moreover, the court stated that the difference here is obvious because the state does not rely on a paternalistic interest in regulation of the Osbornes’ mind.
Rather, Ohio enacted its law in order to protect the victims of child porn it hope to destroy a market for the exploitative use of children It is also surely reasonable for the state to conclude that it will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who posses and view the product thereby decreasing demand.
The court held that Ohio may constitutionally proscribe the possession and viewing of child pornography in consideration of the gravity of the states interests in the context.
The court stated that profanity and indecent speech are not obscene.
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment generally protects such language, but there are notable exceptions.
The court expressly adopted a medium-by-medium approach considering indecent speech over the broadcast media (television or radio) over telephones over the internet and over cable TV.
In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), the court held that the government regulation of indecent speech is followed a medium-by-medium approach in broadcast media.
Here, the court stated that the only “conduct” which the state sought to punish is the fact of communication of indecent speech.
In addition, the court discussed the constitutionality of the conviction resting solely upon the “speech.”
Furthermore, the court held that whatever else may be necessary to give rise to the states broader power to prohibit obscene expression such expression must be in some significant way erotic is not an obscenity.
Moreover, the states are free to ban the simple use without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so called “fighting words” those personally abusive epithets that when addressed to the ordinary citizen are as a matter of common knowledge inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.
The court reasoned that the distasteful mode of expression was trust upon unwilling or unsuspecting views and that the state might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant’s crude form of protest.
The court stated that the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of the given offense.
The court expressed the ability of the government to be consistent with the constitution to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is in other words dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. In addition, any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.
In addition, the court stated that it may be that one has a more substantial claim to a recognizable privacy interest when walking through a courthouse corridor than for example strolling through central park surely it is nothing like the interest in being free from unwanted expression in the confines of one’s own home.
Furthermore, the court held that there is no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically pleasant to the most squeamish among us.
The court held that they cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process because one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.
In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the court upheld the prohibition of indecent speech over television and radio.
In Federal Communications Commission. V. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), the court discussed whether the FCC has any power to regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene.
The commission found a power to regulate indecent broadcasting in two statutes; 18 U.S.C. 1464, which forbids the use of any obscene indecent or profane language by means of radio communications and 47 U.S.C. 303(g) which requires the commission to encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.
In addition, the court discussed whether the First Amendment denies the government any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent language in any circumstances.
The court held that the fact that a society may find the speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.
The court reasoned that the speaker’s opinion is protected by the constitution because it results in an offensive consequence where the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the court held that such utterances are not an essential part of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
The court concluded that offensive speech is not entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment.
The court reasoned that the patently offensive indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen not only in public but also in the privacy of the home where the individual’s right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder.
Therefore, the court stated that the concept requires consideration of a host of variables before applying the nuisance rationale.
In Sable Com. of California v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989), the court held that the protection of the 1st Amendment does not extend to obscene speech.
The court discussed whether congress is empowered to prohibit transmission of obscene telephonic communications.
In addition, the court stated that government may however regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest. Moreover, the court held that this interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards.
The government may serve this legitimate interest but to withstand constitutional scrutiny it must do so by narrowly drawn regulation designed to serve those interests without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms.
Furthermore, the court held that it is not enough to show that the government ends are compelling the means must be carefully tailored to achieve those ends.
The court held unconstitutional the regulation of indecent speech over the internet.
In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), the court held that §223(a)(1)(B), §223(a)(2), §223(d) of the CDA are unconstitutional and unenforceable, except for cases of obscenity or child pornography, because they abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment and are substantially overbroad. Furthermore, the court stated that the internet is entitled to the full protection given to media like the print press, therefore the special factors justifying government regulation of broadcast media do not apply.
The court discussed whether the regulations implemented by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) applied to “ARPANET” are constitutional.
The court stated that the “Indecent transmission” provision and the “patently offensive display” provision of Section 223(a) prohibit the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages to any recipient less than eighteen years of age.
In addition, the court stated that Section 223(d) prohibits the knowing sending or displaying of patently offensive messages in a manner that is available to a person under eighteen years of age.
Furthermore, the district court held that the risk of encountering indecent material by accident is remote because a series of affirmative steps is required to access specific material. Therefore, the CDA is a content-based blanket restriction on speech.
The court reasoned that the CDA is a content-based regulation of speech the vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect of free speech. In addition, the CDA is a criminal statute threatening violators with penalties including up to two years in prison for each act of violation. Moreover, the severity of criminal sanctions may will cause speakers to remain silent rather that communicate even arguably unlawful words ideas and images. The court held that the burden on adult speech is unacceptable is less restrictive alternative would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.
The court concluded that the CDA lacks the precision the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In addition, the court stated that the First Amendment protects the sexual expression that is indecent but not obscene.
In Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), the court discussed whether the court of appeals was correct to affirm a ruling by the district court that enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) should be enjoined because the statute likely violates the First Amendment.
The court reasoned that the content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of free people.
In consequence, the court stated that to guard against that threat the Constitution demands that content-based restriction on speech should be presumed invalid and that the government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.
The court applied the abuse of discretion standard on the review of a preliminary injunction.
The court stated that it should uphold the injunction and remand for trail on the merits if the underlying constitutional question is close.
Moreover, the court expressed that a statute effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another and is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving a legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.
The plaintiffs challenge a content-based speech restriction maintaining the burden is on the government to prove that the proposed alternatives will not be as effective as the challenged statute.
The court stated that certain protected speech may be regulated and then asks what is the least restrictive alternative that will be used to achieve that goal.
The court stated that the purposes of the test is to ensure that speech is restricted no further than necessary to achieve the goal, for it is important to assure that legitimate speech is not chilled or punished.
The court should determine whether the challenged regulation is the least restrictive means among available, effective alternatives.
The court reasoned that the government bears the burden of proof on the ultimate question of COPA’s constitutionality, the respondents proposed less restrictive alternatives that are less effective than COPA. Furthermore, the court contends that it is not an answer to say that COPA reaches some amount of materials that are harmful to minors the question is whether it could reach more of them than less restrictive alternatives. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it entered the preliminary injunction.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED COMMERCIAL SPEECH?
In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976), the court discussed the Constitutional protection of commercial speech for advertising drug prices.
The court held that the First Amendment protects the advertisements for abortion services in newspapers. Moreover, the court expressed that speech is not stripped of First Amendment protection merely because it appears as a commercial advertisement. Furthermore, the fact that the particular advertisement in appellants’ newspaper had commercial aspects or reflected the advertisers commercial interest did not negate all First Amendment guarantees. Thus, the court concluded that the First Amendment protects commercial speech.
The court stated that the advertisement in Gigelow “did more than simply propose a commercial transaction. It contained factual material of clear “public interest.” Moreover, the advertisement related to activity with which at least in some respects the state could not interfere.
Here, in contrast the court questioned whether there is a First Amendment exception for commercial speech.
Furthermore, the court discussed whether this communication is wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment. Commercial speech does not lose its First Amendment protection because money is spent to project the speech as in a paid advertisement of one form or another.
The court assumed that the advertiser’s interest is a purely economic one. Thus, it does not disqualify him from protection under the First Amendment.
The court stated that it has been long been settled that both the employee and the employer are protected by the First Amendment when they express themselves on the merits of the dispute in order to influence its outcome.
The court concluded that the free flow of commercial information is indispensable and if it is indispensable to the proper allocation of resources in a fee enterprise system it is also indispensable to the formation of intelligent opinions as to how that system ought to be regulated or altered affords the listener and speaker equal protection.
The state argued the issue of professionalism. But, the court concluded that the public has the right to know fair pricing through commercial speech like other varieties which is protected. The court did not hold that it never can be regulated in any way. In example, the court stated that untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise has never been protected for its own sake.
Furthermore, the court contended that the First Amendment does not prohibit the state from insuring that the stream of commercial information flow cleanly as well freely.
In alternative, the court expressed that the state can show that these advertisements are either actually untruthful or misleading. The court is presumably not free to restrict in any way commercial efforts on the part of those who profit from the sale of prescription drugs to put them in the widest possible circulation. But, such a line simply makes no allowance whatever for what appears to have been a considered legislative judgment in most states that while prescription drugs are a necessary.
In addition, the court stated that the very real dangers that general advertising for such drugs might create in terms of encouraging, even though the sanctioning illicit use of them by individuals for whom they have not been prescribed or by generating patient pressure upon physicians to prescribe them are simply not dealt with in the court’s opinion.
The court did not believe that the First Amendment mandates the court’s “open door policy” toward such commercial advertising.
The court reasoned that if commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, then the issue arises as to whether such speech should be safeguarded.
Professor Martin Redish, argues that “if the individual is to achieve the maximum degree of material satisfaction permitted by his resources he must be presented with as much information as possible concerning the relative merits of competing products.”
HOW DOES THE COURT RESPOND IN AN OVERVIEW OF THE SECTION?
In Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission Of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), the court refined a test for when the government can regulate commercial speech that is subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson test.
The court discussed whether the laws that outlaw advertising of illegal activities prohibits false and deceptive advertising.
The court indicated that the government may prohibit true advertising that inherently risks becoming false or deceptive.
In addition, the court discussed the laws that limit commercial advertising to achieve other goals, such as enhancing the image of lawyers, decreasing consumption of alcohol or tobacco products, preventing panic selling of houses in neighborhoods, or decreasing gambling.
Furthermore, the court stated that defining commercial speech as advertising is both over inclusive and under inclusive.
In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983), the court discussed whether the government may prohibit the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives.
The court stated that the degree of protection afforded by the First Amendment depends on whether the activity to be regulated constitutes commercial or noncommercial speech.
The court must first determine the proper classification of the mailings at issue here.
The court ruled that speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is classified as commercial speech.
The court reasoned that an economic motivation for mailing the pamphlets would clearly be insufficient by itself to turn the material into commercial speech-intent. Therefore, the mailings constitute commercial speech notwithstanding the fact that they contain discussions of important public issues such a venereal disease and family planning.
Moreover, the court stated that advertising which “links a product to a current public debate” is not thereby entitled to the constitutional protection afforded non-commercial speech.
In addition, the court contended that a company has the full panoply of protections available to its direct comments on public issues so there is no reason for providing similar constitutional protection when such statements are made in the context of commercial transactions.
Furthermore, the court expressed that advertisers should not be permitted to immunized false or misleading product information from government regulations simply by including references to public issues. Thus, all of the mailings in this case are entitled to the qualified protections of commercial speech.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED THE TEST FOR EVALUATING GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH?
In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm. of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), the court discussed whether a regulation of the public Service Commission of the State of New York violates the First and the Fourteenth Amendments because it completely bans promotional advertising by an electrical utility.
Here, the court discussed a ban on the advertiser’s speech.
Moreover, the court discussed the restrictions only on commercial speech that is an expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.
The court stated that the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation. In addition, the court reasoned that the commercial expression not only serves the economic interest of the speaker but also assists consumers and further the societal interests in the fullest possible dissemination of information. Thus, even when advertising communicates only an incomplete version of the relevant facts the First Amendment presumes that some accurate information is better than no information at all. In consequence, the Constitution affords a lesser protection to commercial speech that to other constitutionally guaranteed expression.
The court contended that the protection available for particular commercial expression turns on the nature both of the expression and of the government interests served by its regulation. But, the government may ban forms of communication more likely to deceive the public than to inform it.
The court held that if the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, the government’s power is restricted.
Furthermore, the state must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech. Moreover, the court held that the regulatory technique must be measured by two criteria. First, the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved, and the regulation may not be sustained if it provides only an ineffective or remote support for the government’s purpose.
Second, if the government interest could be served and will be a more limited restriction on commercial speech, then the excessive restriction cannot survive.
In addition, the court held that the regulatory technique may extend only as far as the interest it serves. The state cannot regulate speech that poses no danger to the asserted state interest nor can it completely suppress information when narrower restrictions on expression would serve its interest as well.
The court defined a four-part analysis to determine, first, whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. Second, for commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Third, the court determines whether the asserted government interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, then the court must determine whether the regulation directly advances the government interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.
The court applied intermediate scrutiny of restrictions on commercial speech.
Moreover, the government has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Central Hudson test is met in order to justify a restriction on commercial speech. The court repeatedly stated that the party seeking to uphold a restriction on commercial speech carries the burden of justifying it.
The court has modified the fourth part of the test, the requirement that the regulation be no more extensive than necessary to achieve the government purpose.
In Board of Trustees of the State University of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989), the court held that government regulation of commercial speech is not required to use the least restrictive alternative.
Furthermore, the court held that the government need not use the least restrictive alternative, it must use a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.
In Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (1995), the court discussed whether the statements on labels about the alcohol content of beer are commercial speech in the sense that they may affect purchasers in deciding to buy a particular product. The court comes close to regulating commercial speech.
The court stated that the government regulation of commercial speech must advance the government interest in a direct and material way. In addition, the court maintained that the burden is not satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture. Rather, the court held the government body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and the its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree. Furthermore, the Court held that the government failed to meet this burden because of the irrationality of the regulatory scheme. The government did not prohibit listing of the alcohol content in advertisements for products, just on labels. Moreover, the court held that there were a number of alternative ways of preventing strength was and that these options could advance the government asserted interest in a manner less intrusive to respondents’ First Amendment rights. The court stated that this indicated that the law is more extensive than necessary. The court concluded its opinion by emphasizing the availability of alternatives that would prove less intrusive to the First Amendment’s protection for commercial speech.
The court recognized that it was difficult to reconcile the language in Rubin with Fox.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED THE ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES?
In Pittsburgh Press v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973), the court held that the First Amendment does not protect advertising of illegality.
In addition, the court stated that the speech advocating illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the test for incitement. However, the advertising of illegality is unprotected by the First Amendment without any need to meet the test for incitement.
Moreover, the court held that discrimination in employment is not only commercial activity it is illegal commercial activity under the ordinance.
The court doubted that a newspaper constitutionally could be forbidden to publish a want ad proposing a sale of narcotics or soliciting prostitutes. Moreover, the illegality in this case may be less overt, but the court viewed no difference in principle here.
Furthermore, the court contended that such advertisements can be prohibited, punished, and the basis for civil liability.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED FALSE AND DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING?
In New York v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the court held that false and deceptive advertisements are not protected by the First Amendment.
The court declared that only truthful commercial speech is constitutionally protected.
The court reasoned that the false and deceptive advertisements do not contribute to the marketplace of ideas or the commercial market place in any useful way. In fact, the false and deceptive advertisements distort those markets and therefore are not fit for First Amendment protection.
However, the court contended that in the contexts outside the commercial speech realm, it is clear that false speech is often protected.
Furthermore, the court stated that the absence of protection for false commercial speech is because the speech is more harmful and less likely to regulate. In consequence, the profit motive is more easily verified than most other types of expression.
HOW HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED ADVERTISING THAT INHERENTLY RISKS DECEPTION?
In Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (1979), the court discussed whether true advertisements that inherently risk deception are unprotected by the First Amendment.
The court considered laws that prohibit professionals from advertising or practicing under trade names and restrictions on the ability of professionals to solicit prospective clients. Here, the state law placed restrictions on trade names.
The court held the state law that prohibited optometrist from advertising and practicing under trade names.
The court stated that the state law may serve to identify an optometric practice and to convey info about the type, price and quality of services offered for sale in that practice.
In both instances, the court maintained that the trade name is used as part of proposal of a commercial transaction. Therefore, the form of commercial speech is strictly business and nothing more.
The court distinguished a significantly different form of commercial speech from that considered in Virginia Pharmacy and Bates. In those cases, the state had proscribed advertising by pharmacists and lawyers that contained statements about the products or services offered and the prices. These statements were self-contained and self-explanatory.
The court reasoned that a trade name is a form of commercial speech that has no intrinsic meaning. In addition, a trade name conveys no information about the price and nature of the services offered by an optometrist until it acquires meaning over a period-of-time by associations formed in the minds of the public between the name and some standard of price or quality.
Because the users of trade names can manipulate these ill-defined associations of trade names with price and quality information there is a significant possibility that names will be used to mislead the public.
The court concluded that it is clear that the state’s interest in protecting the public from the deceptive and misleading use of optometrist trade names is substantial and well demonstrated.

XIX

NATURAL TRANSISTIONS

Entrusted in the Earth’s crust
The covenant is secretly in trust
Guarded by the eyes of the wise dog
Plagued by the words thwarted by the frog
Grassy passages reflect solar rays
Galactic indifferences radically obey
As the planets align this time
Some present reasons as others pass rhymes
Lightening connects the dots
Thunder designates the right spots
Pulling in two directions
The force fulfills its connection
The two are one
As another day has begun