Editing First Amendment Sullivan/Outline
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1,041: | Line 1,041: | ||
· '''<u>Rule</u>''' ('' | · '''<u>Rule</u>''' (''Roth''): Obscenity '''not''' covered by 1st Amendment | ||
o '''<u> “Obscenity”</u>''' ('' | o '''<u> “Obscenity”</u>''' (''Miller''): Three-part test | ||
§ '''(1)''' Whether the (a) average person, (b) applying <u>community standards</u>, would find that the work, (c) taken as a whole, (d) appeals to <u>prurient interest</u> (''Roth'') | § '''(1)''' Whether the (a) average person, (b) applying <u>community standards</u>, would find that the work, (c) taken as a whole, (d) appeals to <u>prurient interest</u> (''Roth'') | ||
Line 1,214: | Line 1,214: | ||
o <u>Important</u>: CDA covers ''both'' obscene ''and'' indecent (but nonobscene) material. No requirement under CDA that material, to be covered, involve sexual conduct, lack serious societal value, or be specifically defnied by applicable law (''Miller'' test) | o <u>Important</u>: CDA covers ''both'' obscene ''and'' indecent (but nonobscene) material. No requirement under CDA that material, to be covered, involve sexual conduct, lack serious societal value, or be specifically defnied by applicable law (''Miller'' test) | ||
· ''Ashcroft v. ACLU (I & II)'' (U.S. 2002 & 2004, p.900 & 902): Following ''Reno'', Congress passed Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which prohibited persons from making available to minors via the Internet material that is either (i) obscene or (ii) passes the three-pronged ''Miller'' test. COPA permits affirmative defenses of requiring (i) credit card or adult access code, (ii) digital age verification certificate, or (iii) other reasonable screening technology. In ''Ashcroft I'' Court upholds COPA (see above) but in ''Ashcroft'' ''II'' strikes down, b/c concludes filtering and blocking software constitutes an LRA | · ''Ashcroft v. ACLU (I & II)'' (U.S. 2002 & 2004, p.900 & 902): Following ''Reno'', Congress passed Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which prohibited persons from making available to minors via the Internet material that is either (i) obscene or (ii) passes the three-pronged ''Miller'' test. COPA permits affirmative defenses of requiring (i) credit card or adult access code, (ii) digital age verification certificate, or (iii) other reasonable screening technology. In ''Ashcroft I'' Court upholds COPA (see above) but in ''Ashcroft'' ''II'' strikes down, b/c concludes filtering and blocking software constitutes an LRA | ||
=== Public Schools=== | === Public Schools=== |