My last post of 2019 is here.
2019
Case Study of: Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
The rule of law is that the First Amendment allows no protection for withholding confidentially received information from a grand jury.
Case Study of: Am. Broad. Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
The rule of law is that when an entity communicates the same perceptible images and sounds to multiple people at the same time, it has transmitted a performance to the public within the meaning of The Copyright Act of 1976 and may be held liable for infringing a copyright.
Case Study of: Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Tam 582 US _ (2017)
The rule of law is that it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to deny the registration of a name as a trademark on the basis that the trademark disparages or brings up any living or dead people or groups.
Case Study of: Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)
The rule of law is that it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to criminalize the press to release the name of a rape victim or to permit a private right of action against the press for doing so and that a state supreme court on a federal issue may be considered a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, even if the lower state courts have not completely concluded proceedings.
Case Study of: Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri 410 U.S. 667 (1973)
The rule of law is that since the First Amendment leaves no room for the operation of a dual standard in the academic community with respect to the content of speech, and because the state University's action here cannot be justified as a nondiscriminatory application of reasonable rules governing conduct, the judgments of the courts below must be reversed.
Case Study of: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
The rule of law in claims of defamation or libel states that the First Amendment requires "actual malice," meaning that it requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew the statements were false or acted with gross recklessness, with intent, when publishing something.
Case Study of: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
The rule of law is that the plaintiffs cannot recover for the tort of emotional distress based on picketing at military funerals because First Amendment protections shield this type of speech even if that speech may be deemed "hate speech."
Case Study of: Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989)
The rule of law is that the First Amendment overrides the University of Michigan’s Policy on Hate Speech because it was too vague and extremely broad.
Cast Study of: Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991)
The rule of law is that the First Amendment overrides New York’s “Son of Sam” law’s interest in singling out speech on a singular subject for a financial burden based on its content.
