Craig Smith (FO2-210, crsmith@csulb.edu) with Geoff Brodak, Research Assistant from the Center for First Amendment Studies (FO2-201, 985-7529).
Course Objectives:
This course examines the evolution and impact of First Amendment rights on American society, our political system, and communication technologies. The course emphasizes the following: the evolution of the First Amendment from the colonial period to the present, significant Supreme Court cases interpreting First Amendment law, the First Amendment and electronic media, and the rhetoric of social protest. The course will explore the five major clauses of the First Amendment examining such topics as freedom of speech, assembly, and press, the anti-establishment and free exercise of religion clauses, libel, slander, obscenity, broadcast censorship, and political and commercial.
The main objective of this course is to familiarize students with the evolution and impact of First Amendment issues in America. That understanding requires an analysis of the emergence of a bill of natural rights in England, the impact of enlightenment thinking in colonial America, the crises the First Amendment has weathered, the case law surrounding freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion, and the rules governing social protest.
This course cannot be completed without discussions of such cases as Miller v. California, Roth v. U.S., and Pacifica v. FCC. They involve issues surrounding obscenity, pornography, and indecency. If you believe such discussions will prove embarrassing or distasteful, you are advised to withdraw from the class. Refusing to debate such cases is a violation of the syllabus contract.
This intense capstone course is at the senior level and recommended for pre-law students. Prerequisite: Upper division standing and completion of critical thinking GE requirement. (YOU WILL ALSO NEED A UNIVERSITY E-MAIL ACCOUNT to participate in Beachboard exercises which will be integral to the course. Furthermore, students are responsible for reading the withdrawal (drop) policy of the University. Do not assume the instructor has dropped you from a course simply because you do not attend. Dropping from the course is a student's responsibility.
Major Assignments:
1. Objective midterm covering freedom of expression as it emerged from the Protestant Reformation and the American colonial period and as it evolved during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, the state constitutions, the federal Constitution, the ratification debates over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the controversy over the Alien and Sedition Acts, and other abuses of freedom of expression. (30% of Course Grade). The tests will be based on mainly on lectures and material available our websites at:
www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/smithm.html
and at
www. csulb.edu/~crsmith/1amendment.html
While there is material on reserve in the library, there will be no text per se for the course. Text materials will be made available on line from book Dr. Smith will be publishing this summer.
2. Simulation of court cases involving First Amendment issues in which class is divided into teams of JUSTICES or LAWYERS (cells A or B) for one of the cases attached to the syllabus. Each case will be dealt with by three separate panels: a panel Supreme Court justices who write and announce a decision; a panel of proponents who write and present a brief; and a panel of opponents who write and present a brief. (Each side will have 15 minutes to make its case; presentations should be formal as if before the real Supreme Court. Dress accordingly for presentations.) After the presentations, the JUSTICES will be allowed to ask questions to clarify opinions that they have to write which are due one week after briefs are presented and the case is argued. Opponent and proponent groups will receive comments from the instructor on their oral presentations so that they can rewrite what they have presented in their written assignment, which is due one week after the presentation and will be 30% of your grade for the class. The brief may not exceed 15 pages in length.
Here are more specifics on the assignment:
2A. Lawyers will be divided into cells A & B. They will make a case for their side before the Supreme Court with an argumentative speech no longer than fifteen minutes in length; as few as one member of the cell may speak or all members may speak. You should appoint a chief counsel to coordinate operations and answers and divide responsibilities among group members. One member might be assigned an Internet search, another might be assigned writing up several of the arguments, and so forth. It is highly recommended that you meet with the instructor during his office hours to discuss your case significantly in advance of your scheduled presentation.
3A. Justices must write a Supreme Court decision which can be unanimous, unanimous with concurring opinions, split with majority concurrences and minority dissent or dissents. Justice, in other words may write an individual opinion or write with other justices in the group assigned to your case. Your product will be an original Supreme Court decision on the case assigned to you. You should have done extensive research on the case you were assigned by the time it is debated so that you can question the debaters and criticize their arguments in your brief. Your paper must be an original opinion, and while it may be based on prior Supreme Court decisions, and may quote them extensively, it may not plagiarize them. Your decision is due one week after you hear the oral arguments on the case you are assigned. It should be endnoted or footnoted using proper legal style, maximum length 15 pages, double-spaced, typed, one inch margins. (This paper is 30% of your grade.)
4. Final examination covering lectures on contemporary application of First Amendment law on questions of religious freedom, libel, slander, obscenity, indecency, commercial speech, political and broadcast regulation. The Supreme Court cases used as precedents in the class debates and judicial decisions may also be on the test. That is, important cases used during the course in lectures and arguments before the court may be on the final. (30% of final grade.) Thus, it is important that you attend class to hear the presentations of others and participate in the class discussions of case law.
5. The final 10% of your grade will be based on attendance as recorded on the class attendance sheet. You are allowed one absence with no penalty, all other absences will result in a deduction of .5 from this segment of your grade unless you provide the instructor with a doctor's note or a legal document proving that the absence was unavoidable. Attendance is recorded by teaching assistants for the course.
Grading:
Grades will be given on 0 to 4.0 basis: a total average of 0 to 0.4 is an F; 0.5 to 1.4 is a D; 1.5 to 2.4 is a C; 2.5 to 3.4 is a B; 3.5 to 4.0 is an A. Each assignment will be given a numerical grade which will be multiplied by the percentage above at the end of the semester. All grades are cumulative and computed at the end of the semester; but by averaging your grades, you can tell where you stand as the class progresses. All assignments will be class-curved at the discretion of the professor.
Texts:
Text materials will be available on line. However, back up material for lectures will be put on reserve in the library including Craig Smith's, Silencing the Opposition: Government Strategies of Suppression, To Form a More Perfect Union, and The Ratification of the Bill of Rights and Zelezny's, Cases in Communication Law (1995). Also there are many online sites for Supreme Court cases. Search lexis/nexis and Oyez, Oyez and others. Finally, under Craig Smith's name, there are several books on reserve that cover the lectures on the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If you have trouble following these lectures, you should go to the library's reserve room and check those books out. Be prepared to have some copying expenses due to assignments and library research. Also, you will need to find the cases listed in this syllabus at a library or through on-line services such as:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
or
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct
or
http://www.acad.cua.edu/law/commlaw
or http://oyez (search this one first)
These cases will serve as precedents for your hypothetical cases, which are listed below. You should familiarize yourself as soon as possible with ways by which you can locate such material on your own.
WARNING: The schedule that follows is tentative for the lectures but hard and fast for due dates. Be sure to find material that is covered by the lectures on line on my home page and follow along.
SCHEDULE
January 27th: Orientation. Discussion of syllabus, students cards filled out.
January 29th: Library research orientation with Geoff and library staff.
February 3rd: The evolution of the printing press and free speech in Europe. Martin Luther, the rhetoric of protest, and individual freedom. Issues in free speech in England from the Magna Charta to the Glorious Revolution.
February 5th: The Great Awakening, Revolution, Constitutional debates. The ratification of the Bill of Rights. (Assign cases for the simulation so that groups can meet and research can begin.)
February 10th: Sam Adams theory of social protest; James Madison and Thomas Jefferson challenge the Alien and Sedition Crisis.
February 12th: Abolition crisis; Lincoln and the suspension of habeas corpus. The post-Civil War infringement on free speech by Radical Republicans.
February 17th: The Red Scare under Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and the McCarthy era.
February 19th: (MIDTERM)
February 24th: Review how simulations work. What is an argumentative speech? What is correct form for speeches and papers in the simulation?
February 26th: (Material from this point on may be on the final and will help with brief writing.)
An introduction to the case law surrounding the First Amendment. Religious rights.
March 3rd: Political speech.
March 5th: Press vs. broadcast vs. cable. (Read freedom of information and privacy on your own.)
March 10th: Pornography, obscenity, and indecency.
March 12th; libel and slander.
March 17th: hate speech. A green martini day.
March 19th: Commercial speech rights
March 24th & 26th: Students meet with instructors and in groups to prepare for debates.
CASE DEBATES BEGIN (Class needs to begin on time and stay on schedule.)
March 31st: Cases #1 and #2 are debated.
April 2nd: Cases #3 and #4 are debated.
April 7th: Cases #5 and #6 are debated. Supreme Court decisions are due for cases 1, 2 (See schematic).
April 9th: Cases #7 and #8 are debated. Supreme Court decisions are due for Cases 3, 4.
April 21th: Cases #9 and #10 are debated. Supreme Court decisions for cases 5 and 6 are due.
SPRING BREAK
April 23: Cases #11 and #12 are debated. Supreme Court decisions are due for cases 7, 8
April 28: Supreme Court decisions are due for cases 9 and 10.
April 30: Supreme Court decisions are due for cases 11 & 12.
May 5th: on-line study day.
May 12 and 14 Review of major cases for final. Review case law for final.
May 21 = FINAL Exam at 2:45 to 4:45.
The following cases may appear on the final along with cases cited in class debates. More important, they are to be used by you in building arguments for your side in your hypothetical case. In most of these cases there are at least two opinions: the majority opinion and the minority dissent. But in some cases, there are three or four concurring opinions as justices rationalize their positions. All of these are usable both as precedents and for the arguments you find. But do not plagiarize these decisions; you must write your own speech and provide proper citations for what you quote. You are free to use other U.S. Supreme Court cases which serve your purpose; many of these cases below point to and cite other cases which would prove useful to you. These cases should be seen as a minimal start in your case-topic area.
44Liquormart v. Rhode Island, 1996, (Protects commercial speech rights of liquor price advertisers.)
Board of Trustees of SUNY v. Fox, 1989 (You can't turn your dorm into a marketplace.)
Posadas v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 1986 (Commercial speech may be regulated to advance a government interest.)
Lee v. Weisman, 1992 (Ban prayer at school functions.)
RAV v. St. Paul, 1992 (Bans city regulations against cross burning as too broad. See Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 1993, for a contrary view on hate speech when it is connected with a crime.)
Forsythe County v. Nationalist Movement, 1992 (Strikes down permit fees for rallies.)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969 (Allows students to wear arm bands as a social protest.)
Fraser v. Bethel School District, 1986 (A student can be expelled for causing a disturbance with his/her speech.)
Texas v. Johnson, 1989 (Flag burning is a legitimate method of protest.)
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978 (Upholds FCC's indecency rules for broadcasters.)
Home Box Office v. FCC, 1977 (Cable systems are like newspapers; there is no scarcity, therefore, they can't be regulated the way broadcasters are.)
Buckley v. Valeo, 1976 (The government can limit what you collect in a political campaign, but it cannot limit what you spend.)
CBS v. Democratic National Committee, 1973 (Networks can not be forced to take editorials. See also CBS v. FCC, 1981.)
Roth v. U.S., 1957 (Establishes tests for what is obscene and therefore regulatable.)
Miller v. California, 1973 ( Refines Roth. Community standards play a role in determining what is pornographic. Also see Jenkins v. Georgia a few years later which says, community standards cannot overrule other qualifications.)
Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo, 1974 (Newspapers are not subject to equal space laws.)
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, 1969 (Broadcasters are subject to right of reply laws.)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969 (How far can a speaker go before he or she is guilty of inciting a mob?)
New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964 (Defines libel law for public officials.)
Dennis v. United States, 1951 (Communist rhetoric presents a clear and present danger to the United States.)
Gitlow v. New York, 1925 (Socialist rhetoric presents a clear and present danger to the United States -- union activity. First Amendment is applied against the states using the Fourteenth Amendment as a rationale.)
Schenck v. United States, 1919 (Distributing leaflets during World War I is not a protected activity. See also Abrams v. U.S. of the same year.)
[All cases are hypothetical but based on real cases or sections of them.]
Ms. Potsie Pans has been approached by Mr. Duran Duran, who is a salesman for the Broadleaf Kitchen supply company. His company makes useful things for people who live in college dormitories, items include storage containers, mini-refrigerators, and utensils. Duran tells Pans that if she will host a dorm party in her room for Broadleaf products, he will give her a free mini-refrigerator. She agrees and the party is held at 2 in the afternoon in her room. A half hour into Duran's speel, the campus security person arrives and shuts down the party under a rule of Slippery Rock U. that no commercial activity may be carried on in the dormitories. Duran refuses to give Pans her fridge. Ms. Pans then sues the University arguing that her and Duran's First Amendment rights have been violated. Pans says, "My dorm is my home and I should be free to do and say what I want there. They wouldn't have pulled the plug on Home Shopping Network if I had been watching it in the student lounge." Students are allowed to have televisions in their dorm rooms if they turn them off by 10PM. The university seeks to uphold the SUNY v. Fox decision as precedent; Pans and Duran seek to have SUNY v. Fox overturned relying in part on 44Liquormart and other cases. Side 1A = the University; side 1B = Ms. Pans and Mr. Duran. 1C=Supreme Court: Do you find for the University or for Ms. Pans?
Michael Buck, a local anchorman who often gives his opinion on the news, says just after a series of riots in Beverly Hills, that Mayor Minny Bradley incited the riots with her statement following a verdict in the case of a beating an aged man at a bus stop. The man had been pulled off his walker by police who had been in hot pursuit of him suspecting that he was the aged man school children reported as a lewd flasher. When the man refused to fall to the ground to be cuffed, the police pulled him from his walker, shot him with tazers, and beat him severely. Despite a video tape of the incident provided by an unemployed Hollywood director who lived on the street, the police were found not guilty of the use of excessive force. Mayor Minny Bradley, then said, "If ever there was a justification for the people of Beverly Hills to riot, this is it. This decision is outrageous and a clear case of prejudice against the aged of our community." Immediately following her press conference, thousands of senior citizens in Beverly Hills stormed out of their rest homes and condos and began setting cars on fire, looting stores, and beating up passersby. Buck, giving his opinion over the air at the end of his "action news" segment, said that the Mayor's remarks were inflammatory and "caused people to burn, kill and loot. The Mayor ought to be put in jail for her criminal inducement to riot." Mayor Bradley demanded response time to Buck, invoking the "Personal Attack Rule" of the Fairness Doctrine and relying on the Red Lion Broadcasting case. Buck's station told the Mayor to take a hike. It claimed their First Amendment rights would be violated if they were forced to grant the Mayor's wish. They argue that since the appellate court of the District of Columbia ruled in TRAC v. FCC that the fairness doctrine had not been codified in 1959, and since the FCC had subsequently (Aug. 1987) repealed the fairness doctrine, its corollary, the personal attack rule should also be repealed. Bradley went to the FCC asking it to force Buck's station to put her on the air. The FCC populated with Clinton appointees who favor the re-establishing the fairness doctrine, agreed and ordered the station to put Bradley on to respond to Buck. The local station and Buck appeal the FCCs ruling to the Supreme Court asking that it declare the Fairness Doctrine and its corollaries null and void once and for all. Side 2A = Buck and Local Station. Side 2B = FCC and Bradley. 2C=Supreme Court: Do you find for Buck and his station or for the FCC and Mayor Bradley?
In March of 1995, Herman Bond was the head of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance in Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota. The Alliance had been in existence for three years. The Alliance announced that for the first time it planned to march in the annual St. Christopher day parade which has been operating for 50 years. The parade, which always starts on the steps of the Cathedral of St. Christopher, goes down the center of Main Street and ends up at City Hall. The parade is organized by the Cathedral's Knights of Columbus group. When they hear that the Alliance wants to march in the parade, they ask city officials to bar the group because it is not in the spirit of St. Christopher, nor the Catholic church. The head of the Knights told the city council, "Why don't they hold their own parade. This is our parade. Our kids will be on the side walks watching. We have established a tradition over 50 years that the Alliance will destroy." One city council member asked if the Knights have ever barred a group before. The head of the Knights answered that they have not. But what would happen if NAACP was to hold a march and members of the KKK asked to join in. "Surely, you wouldn't allow that would you. Furthermore, we can't guarantee the safety of these people if they choose to march." The city council agreed and banned the Alliance from marching in the St. Christopher parade. But the Alliance, citing the Hurley case in Boston, sought a court injunction to either stop the parade or allow the Alliance to march. They argue that the parade has never barred any group from marching and that since it is conducted on city streets and is a public tradition, they have a right to march. Furthermore, they add that precluding groups from participating in a religiously oriented parade is yet another violation of the First Amendment because such a ban is tantamount to supporting one religion over another which violates the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The case goes to the Supreme Court. Side 3A= the Gay and Lesbian Alliance; side 3B= the City of Minnetonka. 3C=Supreme Court: Do you find for the Alliance or for the City of Minnetonka? (See Hurley vs. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group, 94-749, 1995.)
Congressman Aaron Cargyle runs for re-election in the 38th District in California. After he has won the election, the Federal Election Commission discovers that the wealthy land baron Sharon Downey has contributed $25,000 to Cargyle's campaign. The Federal Elections Commission lays a fine on Cargyle's campaign of $50,000 and another fine of $50,000 on Downey. Downey appeals the decision to the federal courts on several grounds: 1) it is her money and she ought to be able to spend it as she sees fit, 2) limiting the amount she can give a candidate limits her free speech, her ability to endorse a candidate. Downey loses at the appeals level; the Court cites the Buckely v. Valeo case and argues that money is not speech, though it might be a symbol for it. Downey, now joined by Cargyle, appeals to the Supreme Court arguing that the Buckely case should be overturned because it is in contradiction with itself with regard to contributions versus spending standards. Both argue that money is equivalent to symbolic speech in a political campaign, and therefore, protected speech under the Johnson v. Texas, and Tinker v. Des Moines standard. Thus, to limit money is to limit speech. Do you find for Cargyle and Downey or the FEC? Side 4A = Downey and Cargyle; Side 4B = FEC. 4C=Supreme Court: Who do you find for?
In Nebraska, an employee in the photolab of a chain department store discovers photographs of nude children, estimated to be ages 3 through 5. The backdrops for these photos appear to be a bathroom as well as a bedroom. The children are not consciously posing for the camera but appear to be engrossed in playing with toys or reading books, etc. Nebraska has a "child pornography" law that prohibits the taking, sale or distribution or possession of photographs or other graphic depictions of minors that portrays or exposes the genitalia. Some of the nude pictures in the rule do show the children's genitals. Employees in the photolab have been instructed to advise their superiors if they develop any film that contains pictures of children in the nude. The employee does so, and his superior calls the police, who come and confiscate the photos. Based on the information supplied on the envelope by the party who left the film, the police are led to the home of Mrs. Dubfire, an elderly lady who babysits for a number of families in the neighborhood. She is arrested and charged with violation of the child pornography statute.
At trial, Mrs. Dubfire explains that she thought the children were very cute playing together and she wanted to take the pictures and give them to the parents of the children. No other evidence is offered by the prosecution on Mrs. Dubfire's culpability. Several witnesses for the defense testify as to the good character of Mrs. Dubfire. At the end of the case, a motion is made by the defense for a "directed verdict" in favor of the defendant (that is, asking that the judge direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty because the prosecution has failed to prove its case). The motion is denied. The case proceeds and the local jury finds Mrs. Dubfire guilty of engaging in child obscenity under the law. Mrs. Dubfire appeals to the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. 5A = Mrs. Dubfire: 5B = The state of Nebraska. 5C= Supreme Court: How do you find?
Self confessed "shock jock" Henrietta Sturm regularly makes sexual allusions during her morning drive time (7AM to 10AM) morning radio show in Los Angeles. The station is owned by the Big Stick broadcasting company in Denver, which syndicates the show across the country. During several morning shows, Sturm makes remarks that draw complaints from listeners. These remarks include the following: "When I get nude in front of a gay guy, they get so hot that they can't control themselves... Those stupid, bastard Russians are so lazy they can't produce anything. ... I'm completely aroused by Brad Pitt who is here today. I don't think he's wearing underpants. Let me look. OOOeeee. . . . . I just heard the commissioner of the FCC has prostate cancer. I hope it runs through his whole body. I pray for his death. . . I hate Mark and Brian. I want to just strip and rape their wet bodies . . . Malcolm X would throw up if he saw Eddie Murphy's movies. I've never seen such an ass-kisser in my life. Is he sleeping with Arsenio or what?"
Sturm's ratings are the highest in the LA area; and she's second in the Philadelphia market. One radio listener, Ms. Judy Trump, is surprised when her daughter tunes in to Sturm's show on her way to her daughter's school. "All the kids listen," the daughter reports. Ms. Trump is so outraged, she files a formal complaint with the FCC. It turns out that Ms. Trump never listens to that station but that her 12 year old daughter turns it on her walkman when she gets to school because her friends think Sturm is "cool." Citing FCC v. Pacific, and the ACT II and ACT III cases, the FCC fines Sturm $105,000 and fines Big Stick broadcasting $600,000 for repeated violations of the FCC's indecency code in several markets where Sturm's show is syndicated. Sturm and Big Stick immediately appeal the decision to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Pacifica Case and ACT II and ACT III. Side 6A = Mrs. Trump and the FCC; Side 6B = Sturm and Big Stick Broadcasting. 6C= Supreme Court: Do you find for Sturm and Big Stick or the FCC?
In 1996 Riverside, California passes a "Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance" aimed at preventing "hate crimes" and "hate speech." The law imposes a $5,000 fine and up to one year in jail. Specifically, the ordinance forbids "placing on public or private property" a symbol such as a Nazi swastika that will "arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, or gender." In July of 1997, Junior Lapinski, a 14-year old living in Riverside, paints an upside down Buddha on the wall of his neighbor's house, Mr. Ishtar Punjawahara, who is a Buddhist. Instead of arresting Junior for "defacing private property," Junior is arrested under the 1996 law against hate speech. The California Supreme Court upholds the law under the "fighting words" doctrine of Chaplinski v. New Hampshire and the enhanced penalty ruling in Mitchell v. Wisconsin. The case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. Side 7A = Junior Lapinski; Side 7B= City of Riverside. 7C=Supreme Court: Do you hold for Riverside or for Junior Lapinski? (See R.A.V. v. St. Paul.)
In 1995, Congress passes and the president signs a bill requiring that five mandated warnings must be rotated "in an alternating sequence" in all television advertising of any alcoholic beverage. The label/announcements include warnings about consuming alcohol while pregnant, driving while under the influence of alcohol, and operating machinery while under the influence of alcohol. (See Kennedy - Gore legislation and hearings on S. 2439/ HR 4493 1991, or the Thurmond-Kennedy proposals of 1993, which are identical.) Some of the warnings run over 30 words and include an 800 number for information. In television and radio advertising, the legislation says that the warning must be "read . . . in an audible and deliberate manner and in a length of time that allows for a clear understanding. . . ." Television stations, networks, beer, wine and advertising companies are outraged. They argue that the legislation would terminate most 15 and 30 second advertising. That would do tremendous damage to the already shrinking budgets of free television networks and stations since such advertising provides of $612 million a year for television and radio. It could mean the end to free coverage of the Olympic Games and many other sporting events. They appeal to the Supreme Court for relief under the First Amendment. Side 8A = beer companies and advertisers; Side 8B= federal government. 8C=Supreme Court: Do you find for Congress or for the advertisers and networks?
Carol Muhumed is student at Palos Verdes High School. She is of Iraqi descent. During the debate over whether to invade Iraq in 2003, she lets her fellow students know that she opposes the war by wearing an Iraqi flag around her shoulders. During her lunch break, she is yelled at by a group of fellow students, one of which rips off her flag and tramples it into the mud reducing Carol to tears.
The next day during the school-wide assembly, Carol jumps out of the stands and pulls a kerosene drenched American flag she has purchased the night before from a small bag. She burns the flag in the middle of the outdoor grass covered football on the fifty yard line. The classes are meeting in the stands around the field as they always do during assemblies. Several students run onto the field chasing Carol; she flees back to where she was sitting and several students of Iraqi descent try to protect her. Fights break out and several students are injured. Carol is expelled for disruptive behavior, particularly for burning the U.S. flags which the school argues was the cause of the disruption.
She appeals to the Supreme Court arguing her First Amendment rights have been violated. Side 9A = Carol Muhumed; side 9B = Palos Verdes High School District. 9CSupreme Court: Do you hold for Carol Muhumed or for the school district?
During the Gulf War of 1991, Harry Hopkins distributed leaflets that encourage young men to resign from the army and to sabotage machinery by putting sand in gas tanks if they stay in the army. The leaflets outline ways by which young men and women can leave the army or sabotage tanks, trucks, and guns. The leaflets call the war a capitalist trick and argues that the defeat of the U.S. in the Gulf will mean the rise of a truly socialist government in this country, which he claims is what we need. Hopkins is arrested when he distributes his leaflets just five feet in front of an army recruitment center in Los Angeles. The government claims that Hopkins presents a clear and present danger to the United States and that they are acting on a law passed by Congress in 1968 which prohibits demonstrations against the war from coming within 50 yards of a recruitment center. Hopkins appeals his conviction to the Supreme Court. Side 10A = Hopkins; side 10B = U.S. Government. 10C=Supreme Court: Do you find for Hopkins or the U.S. government?
During Bosnia-Serbia-Croatia conflict, the Marines, Army, Air Force, and Navy run advertising that encourages young men and women to sign up and join the service. During the time period, over 99 ads are run on the three major networks. The Pacifist Party of America demands that the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated by the FCC (because it was illegally repealed in 1987 based on the fact that it was codified in 1959, TRAC not withstanding), and that the networks give the Party response time at a ratio of 1 to 3 under the 1934 Communication Act as amended. The Party further argues that 33 ads is more than fair, given the "saturation of the airwaves" by the armed forced.
The FCC refuses to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and calls the case moot. The Pacifist Party appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing in part that the Fairness Doctrine was never properly repealed nor did Justice Bork properly understand the law in his TRAC decision which allow the Doctrine to be repealed. Side 11A = Pacifist party; 11B= FCC. 11C=Supreme Court: Do you find for the FCC or the Pacifist Party?
Professor Jerry Mysog is the only teacher of Introduction to Philosophy 101, a required course in mass lecture format at California State University at Los Alamitos. He has been on the faculty for ten years and has received tenure for his excellent teaching reviews and many publications. As the new semester begins, he announces to his mass lecture class that he has had a revelation while reading "intelligent design theory" on the creation of the universe. He has determined that philosophy is gender based; that the language of male philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, is quite different than the language of female philosophers like Simon DeBouvier. Furthermore, he claims he has discovered why there are so few female philosophers: females, he says during his third lecture on the subject, are not human beings, but are aliens from another solar system. He says, "The Bible makes very clear that Eve was built from the rib of Adam. My theory is that while Adam was sleeping in the Garden of Eden, an alien space ship landed. Aliens removed his rib and using DNA formulations tried to construct a model. The experiment failed. The clone was shaped differently than Adam and in other ways anatomically odd. The clone was physically weaker, but capable of reproduction functions, which Adam was not. The clone was left behind and the space ship took off. That clone was the beginning of the female race. They are aliens, I tell you." After the lecture Mysog is confronted by several female students who yell challenges at him. He responds by saying, "My theory is that we are a product of intelligent design, not God, but aliens from another universe. You should appreciate my theory because it helps us tolerate lesbianism. Women should be with their own kind. And it helps us tolerate homosexuality because men should be with their own kind." All of this is recorded by a student who also recorded Professor Mysog's lecture.
Mysog's remarks set off protests across the campus when they are printed in the student newspaper, The Daily 69er, particularly in the Women's Studies department. Mysog's classes are disrupted by banner waving female students and he demands that the university restore order and allow him "to do his job." The university does not stop the campus demonstrations nor does it stop the disruptions in the classroom. Instead, the university establishes an ad hoc committee to investigate and recommend solutions. Without hearing Mysog, the committee recommends and the University agrees to create a parallel course to Professor Mysog's so that students could complete the course without having to listen to him. The course will be taught Professor Minna Doflag, an untenured assistant professor. Mysog relies on a fraternity to keep order in his classes. He then sues the university and obtains an injunction cancelling the parallel course. The case goes to the Supreme Court. Side 12A= Mysog; 12B= the University. (See at least case of Leonard Jeffries of the City of University of New York; and Widmar case. You may also want to examine the following sources John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner, Cells, Embryos, and Evolution (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, 1997), pp. 129, 140; Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesday, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986); James Valentine and Douglas Erwin, "Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record," in Development as an Evolutionary Process, R. A. Raff and E. C. Raff, eds (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1987), pp.71-107; Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (New York: Modern Library, 1936); Michael J. Behe, "Intelligent Design as an Alternative Explanation for the Existence of Biomolecular Machines," Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 1 (1998): 567., pp. 338, 345, 346).
12C=Supreme Court: Do you find for Mysog and uphold the cancelling of the parallel class or do you find for the university and allow the parallel class?