Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.
-
Upload
roger-moody -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.
![Page 1: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14)Government
Civil Rights and Equal Protection
![Page 2: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Ch 13 STGs
Students will explain:1. Importance of the Nationalization of the Bill
of Rights2. Why is the U.S. Constitution considered a
“living document”?
![Page 3: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Civil Liberties & The Citizen
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no
court can even do much to help it.”Judge Learned Hand
What does this mean?
![Page 4: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
The Bill of Rights
• What are the Bill of Rights
![Page 5: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights
• The Bill of Rights were written by elected representatives at the
____________________ level of government.
• Extending the Bill of Rights to ALL levels of government is called ____________________.
![Page 6: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Incorporation (continued)
• But that was NOT done until 1925 when the Supreme Court finally decided to nationalize the Bill of Rights (extend them to state governments) in the case of
___________________ v New York, 1925
In which the Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment to state governments, thus reversing the Dred Scott Decision. (and Barron v Baltimore, 1833)
![Page 7: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Exceptions to Incorporation
1. ______ Amendment2. ______ Amendment3. ______ Amendment4. Fifth Amendment: States are NOT required to
use a _______ Jury to file charges for serious crimes.
5. Seventh Amendment: States are NOT required to use a jury in _______ cases.
![Page 8: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Importance of Incorporation
• Means that …
![Page 9: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Ch 13-1 Quiz
1. When it came time to ratify a new constitution to replace the weak Articles of Confederation, why did state leaders insist on a national Bill of Rights?
2. What branch of government has been MOST responsible for Incorporating the Bill of Rights?
![Page 10: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Ch 13-2 Freedom of Religion
STGs (Students explain)1. Difference between the Establishment Clause
and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
2. Why does the court allow bus-transportation to parochial school to be paid for with state dollars but ban paying for buses for field trips for parochial schools?
![Page 11: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Free Exercise of Religion vs the Establishment Clause
• Establishment Clause– ______ clause of– ______ Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
![Page 12: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Free Exercise of Religion vs the Establishment Clause
• Free Exercise of Religion Clause– _________ clause of– _________ Amendment
• Prohibits government from unduly interfering with the free exercise of religion
![Page 13: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
The Establishment Clause
Look at pg 359, the photo of soldiers praying. Is this a violation of The Establishment Clause?
Explain why/why not.
![Page 14: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Everson v Board of Education, 1947
• Brief:
• Decision:• Opinion by Justice Hugo Black– “ “
![Page 15: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Applying the Establishment ClauseState Aid to Parochial SchoolsCases & Precedents (LEAVE ROOM FOR PRECEDENT)
1. Everson v Board of Education, 19472. Board of Education v _______, 19683. Wolman v Walter, 19774. Lemon v _______, _____ (year)5. Levitt v ____________, 19736. _________ v Regan, 19807. Mueller v _______, 19838. Mitchell v Helms, 20009. Kiryas Joel v Grumet, 1994
![Page 16: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Can Public School Students get Release Time to Attend Religious Classes?
Cite the cases & the precedent setting decisionsWhy was it not permitted in McCollum but
allowed in the Zorach case?
![Page 17: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
What about Prayer in Public Schools?
Permitted when… Not Permitted when…
Case:Setting: Voluntary Attendance
Case:Setting: OK when not led by a faculty/staff member.
Case: Engel v Vitale, 1962Setting: When led by a religious leader (clergy)
Case: Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe, 2000Setting: At a school function such as a football game or graduation, even if led by a student b/c it is a “captive audience” situation
![Page 18: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Are Religious Clubs permitted to Meet on Public School Grounds?
(Equal Access – pg 362)Cite law(s) & case(s). Include case precedents.
Law or Case Explain
Act: Equal Access Act, 1984
Allows student led clubs to meet at school for prayer groups (outside of class time)
Case: Westside Community Schools v Mergen, 1990
The Equal Access Act IS constitutional b/c it was student-initiated & student-led.
![Page 19: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Teaching Evolution in Schools
• An Arkansas law bans teaching evolution in public schools. – Constitutional/Unconstitutional ? HINT: pg 362– Why?
![Page 20: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Teaching Creationism in Public Schools
Some states passed laws allowing creationism to be taught in public schools.
• What is creationism?• What case ruled on teaching it in public
schools?– Constitutional/Unconstitutional– Why
![Page 21: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Free Exercise of Religion
___________ Amendment forbids any laws “prohibiting the free exercise of religion”
Does that mean that you can do anything IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
and be protected under this clause?
![Page 22: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Free Exercise of ReligionCase Precedent
1. Reynolds v US, 1879 Bigamy is illegal even if your religion allows it
2. Jacobson v Massachusetts, 1905
Must get vaccinated even if it I against your religion
3. Oregon v Smith, 1990 Cannot do drugs on job or have it in system at work
4. City of Boerne, TX v Flores
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional
5. Wisconsin v Yoder, 1972
![Page 23: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Religious Displays
When are they allowed?
Read Lynch v Donnelly then County of Allegheny v ACLU and then answer.
![Page 24: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Do you have to salute the flag?
Read• Minersville School District v Gobitis, 1940– Decision: write the decision
“Defending Beliefs” pg 364,• West Virginia State Board of Education v
Barnette, 1943– Decision: write the decision
then answer
![Page 25: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Ch 13-2 Quiz
1. The three tests of the Lemon Test determining constitutionality of a law on religion: (state aid to parochial schools)1. 2. 3.
2. Explain the Equal Access principle of law.
![Page 26: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Ch 13-3 Freedom of Speech
STGs1. How has the Supreme Court applied:– Clear and Present Danger– Bad Tendency Doctrine– Preferred Position
in relation to Free Speech?
2. The First Amendment & Free Speech:– What is protected?– What is NOT protected?
![Page 27: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Which amendment protects speech?
![Page 28: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Explain the two types of protected “speech”. Give examples
1. _________ Speech:– Has the most protection– Uses only ______ to convey ideas– Delivered _____________________________– EX:
2. __________ Speech or Expressive Conduct:– Uses _____ &/or words– Sometimes is NOT protected– EX:
![Page 29: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Symbolic Speech/Expressive Conduct
Restrictions must pass the Three-Part Test. This Right is weighed against the safety, security & rights of others.The Three-Part Test: (pg 367)1. 2. 3.
![Page 30: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Key Cases on Symbolic Speech Pg 367Case Decision
1. US v O’Brien, 1968
2. Tinker v Des Moines SD, 1969
3. Frisby v Schultz, 1988
4. TX v Johnson, 1989
5. US v Eichmann, 1990
6. Hill v CO, 2000
![Page 31: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Limits on Free Speech
• First Amendment Freedoms > than other Freedoms.
• Restricted ONLY when absolutely necessary• During wartime & times of national security,
the right to Free Speech is MORE LIMITED
![Page 32: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Limits on Free Speech (continued)
The Supreme Court uses Three General Guidelines to decide if a
Restriction on Free Speech is Constitutional.
![Page 33: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
GUIDELINE ONEClear & Present Danger
Schenck v United States, 1919The Espionage Act of 1917 • illegal to “willfully utter, print, write or publish
any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” about the government
• Schenck was convicted of distributing pamphlets encouraging draft obstruction
• Constitutional? Why/Why not?
![Page 34: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
The Espionage Act of 1917
• Was Constitutional• Why?– Congress has the right to prevent words that may
create a “clear and present danger”– In TIMES OF WAR, speech that would normally be
protected MAY NOT BE PROTECTED
![Page 35: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
GUIDELINE TWOThe Bad Tendency Doctrine
Gitlow v New York, 1925• Convicted for articles promoting violent overthrow
of democratic governmentsDECISION:• Freedom of Speech is a basic right that no state can
deny EXCEPT to protect the people• EVEN if it is NOT A CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER, • IF IT HAS A TENDENCY TO LEAD TO ILLEGAL ACTIONS,it can be limited
![Page 36: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
GUIDELINE THREEThe Preferred Position Doctrine
• First Amendment Freedoms > than all others• Basis of All Liberties• Any Restrictions on First Amendment
Freedoms are ASSUMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL• Unless government proves it is absolutely
necessary
![Page 37: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Preferred Doctrine Positiondoes NOT protect
• Speech intended to advocate • immediate and concrete acts of violence
So, Sedition Laws are Constitutional
![Page 38: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Dennis v US, 1951
• Convicted under the Smith Act (advocate revolution)
• Advocated revolution• Used broad interpretation of
“clear and present danger” to uphold conviction during peacetime
• This guideline has been more narrowly interpreted since then
![Page 39: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969
• KKK rally leader was arrested for NOT ending the rally
• Conviction overturned because his actions were NOT imminently going to produce lawless action
• NOTE: Subsequent decisions HAVE RESTRICTED this Form of Expression when it appeared likely to produce violence by the participants OR the CROWD.
![Page 40: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Not Protected1. Defamatory Speech– Slander– Libel– Does NOT include Satire of Officials, …
2. Fighting Words– Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 1942• “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the
insulting or “fighting” words…tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”
3. Student Speech– Tinker, 1969 (right IS protected, only restricted)– Fraser, 1986– Kuhlmeier, 1988
![Page 41: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Yates v US, 1957
• Communist Party members said government Should be overthrown• Conviction overturned because it did NOT tell
people to overthrow the government
![Page 42: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Ch 13-3 Quiz
Three Constitutional Limits on Free Speech1. 2. 3.
![Page 43: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Ch 13-4 Freedom of the Press
STGs1. What is the Supreme Court’s opinion on prior
restraint?– What is prior restraint?
2. How has the Supreme Court ruled when media coverage could affect a court trial?
![Page 44: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Prior Restraint
• Prior Restraint/Censorship of information– BEFORE it is published
– Is that Constitutional?• Not usually
• When is it Constitutional?– ONLY when directly related to national security
![Page 45: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Prior Restraint Cases
Near v Minnesota, 1931• An injunction stopping publication of a newspaper
critical of public officials• Court ruled – UNCONSTITUTIONAL
New York Times v US, 1971• US/Pentagon tried to stop NYT – publishing the
Pentagon Papers proving gov’t lied about wartime casualties,…
• Court ruled - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
![Page 46: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Free Press vs Fair TrialsA Balancing of Rights
1st Amendment vs 6th Amendment (pg 372)Sheppard v Maxwell, 1966Press coverage interfered with a fair trial.To restrain the press, Judges may:1. Moving the trial2. Limiting the # of reporters in courtroom3. Controls on reporters behavior in courtroom4. Isolating witnesses and jurors from the press5. Sequestering the jury until trial ends
![Page 47: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
Gag Orders
Nebraska Press Association v Stuart, 1976Gag orders • Define:• vague & broad• unconstitutional
![Page 48: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Press Access to TrialsGannett Co., Inc v DePasquale, 1979
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 1980
Can bar public & press from pretrial hearings
Modified Gannett ruling.Trials, jury selections & prelim hearings MUST BE OPEN TO THE PRESS & PUBLIC
IF “reasonable probability exists it may harm right to fair trial
EXCEPT UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES
![Page 49: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
Shield Laws
1. What is a Shield Law?2. How many states have them?
![Page 50: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Also covered under 1st Amendment
• Radio & Television: Cable Television Cases– Turner Broadcasting System v FCC, 1997• Cable also protected under 1st Amendment• Less than newspapers & print media
– Telecommunication Act of 1996• Partially struck down as too restrictive• Can’t be required to censor explicit material from
children’s eyes
![Page 51: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
Also under 1st Amendment Protection
• Motion Pictures– Burstyn v Wilson, 1952
• E-Mail & Internet– Reno v ACLU, 1997• Struck down part of Communications Decency Act which
tried to protect children from indecent material
• Obscenity– Miller v California, 1973• Local communities set laws on what is acceptable within
reason
![Page 52: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Advertising
• Commercial Speech• Profit motive• Less protected than other forms of “speech”• Since Bigelow v Virginia, 1975– Lessened restrictions on advertising
• Can advertise medical & legal services• Lessened regulations on outdoor advertising
![Page 53: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Ch 13-5 Freedom Assembly
STGs1. Limits on public assembly2. Protections on
1. Demonstrations2. Unpopular groups that might incite violence
![Page 54: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
Freedom of Assembly
“the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances”– Private and public places– Petitions– Sign carrying in a parade or march– lobbying
![Page 55: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
DeJonge v Oregon, 1937
• Overturned a conviction for holding a public meeting of the Communist Party
• Unpopular groups also have rights• As important as Free Speech & Free Press• First Amendment• And under Due Process in Fourteenth
Amendment
![Page 56: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
56
Demonstrations & Parades, pg 377
• A permit may be required to limit clashes among demonstrators & protestors
• Permit cannot be denied just because a group is unpopular (Cox v New Hampshire, 1941)
• May be denied for public safety• The fee cannot be unreasonable (American
Nazi Party v Skokie, IL, 1977)
![Page 57: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
57
Location Sensitive
• Adderly v Florida, 1966Public places OKEXCEPT: entry to jails requires permission
• Cox v Louisiana, 1965Courthouses grounds – may be limited (fair trial)
• Grayned v City of Rockford, 1972Banned if it’s purpose is to disrupt classes
![Page 58: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
58
Equal Access to All Groups
Police Department of Chicago v Mosley, 1972• Overruled a law banning all demonstrations
near school buildings except for picketing• Restrictions AND access must be evenly
applied to all groups
![Page 59: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
59
Free Assembly: On Private Property v Public Property
• Public Property usually allowed– Permits & restrictions may apply
• Private Property– Lloyd Corporation v Tanner, 1972• Cannot demonstrate at a shopping mall (private
property)
– Schenk v Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 1997• Buffer zone
![Page 60: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
60
Public Safety
• Feiner v New York, 1951– Police MAY halt FREE ASSEMBLY IF IT BECOMES A
HAZARD TO PUBLIC SAFETY• Gregory v City of Chicago, 1969– Parade/Free Assembly is permitted– Even if it creates public disorder – As long as it is peaceful and orderly– And NOT a hazard
![Page 61: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
61
Picketing
Generally protectedInconsistent rulings over timeThornhill v Alabama, 1940• Picketing is generally protectedHughes v Superior Court, 1950• Refused to overturn a ban on picketing in supermarket
in CAInt’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 695 v Vogt, 1957
Upheld Wisconsin law banning picket UNLESS there is a labor dispute
![Page 62: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
62
Whitney v California, 1927
• Whitney attended a Communist convention where violence was advocated as a means to overthrow a government
• Had NOT participated in any violent actions NOR was planning any violent actions
• Convicted under “clear and present” danger• Precedent for ruling in Dennis v US, 1951
![Page 63: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
63
DeJonge v Oregon, 1937
Upheld Right of Free Association(Right to join groups)
![Page 64: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
64
Freedom of Association
• Is membership in a controversial or “terrorist” group permitted?
THEN• Legality of membership based on type of group
TODAY• Generally protected to ensure freedom to– Join a political party– Interest group
![Page 65: Unit 5 (Ch 13 & 14) Government Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d305503460f94a08344/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
65
Any Questions?