C 3 .4 (1 ) A N a tio n o f L a w s

• Ku Klux Klan• Created after Civil War

• Protested 14th Amm: “Equal Protection” clause• Target:

• African-Americans who gained political power• White Republicans who supported “Radical Reconstruction”

C3.4(1)

• Civil Rights Act of 1871 (“KKK Act”)• Southern states appealed to Congress for help• Certain crimes now federal offenses

C3.4(1)

• What other forms of corruption is there when law breaks down?• Police brutality

• Rodney King

C3.4(1)

• What other forms of corruption is there when law breaks down?• Organized Crime

• Mafia• Al Capone• John Dillinger

C3.4(1)

• Can limits be placed on our 1st Amendment Free Speech Rights? • Schenck v the United States (1919)• Ruling: Free Speech is not an “absolute right”

• Gov’t can restrict our speech when our words present a “clear and present danger”

C 3 .4 (1 )

• The “Angry Crowd” Case• Speech at City Hall after WWII

• “Hitler was right”• “Democrats and Jews were destroying America”• Termeniello arrested

• Termeniello v Chicago (1949)• His arrest was unconstitutional

• “clear and present danger” is more than an annoying and inconvenient speech

C 3 .4 (1 )

• Strict Scrutiny• Form of judicial review

• Courts rule on laws• Can restrict free speech

• If it is proven there was no less-restrictive way to do so

C3.4(1)

Time, Place, and Manner Regulations (TPM)

TIME• can’t protest on busy street during rush hour

C4.3(1)

Place• Traditional Public Forums (very limited gov’t interference)• streets, public parks, sidewalks

• Limited Public Forums (medium gov’t interference)• Court house, state fair, university

• Non-Public Forums (strict gov’t interference) • Airports, jailhouses, private property

C 3 .4 (1 )

Manner• Regulates the mode of individual expression• Symbolic (non-verbal) speech• Ex: flag burning; clothes you wear

C3.4(1)

• If a TPM ruling goes against you, the Gov’t must …• Provide speakers with alternative forms of communication

• The average person cannot use TV or radio

C3.4(1)

• What are some alternative forms of communication? • phones

• Van Bergen v Minnesota (Circuit Court, 1995)• Illegal to “robot call” potential voters in Minnesota

• E-Mail• “political spam”?

C3.4(1)SUMMARY QUESTIONS

1. Review Schenck v The United States. Do you agree with the Court’s decision? Why or why not?

2. Review The Angry Crowd case. Was Mr. Termeniello using hate speech, or exercising his free speech rights? Explain.

3. Look at TPM: Place. Do you agree with the level of government interference with each criteria (ex: non-public forums = strict gov’t interference)? Why or why not?

4. Look at TPM: Manner: should the Government have the right to limit how you dress sometimes? If so, when? If not, why?

5. Van Bergen v Minnesota ruled it is illegal to “robot-call (phone)” potential voters, but it is okay to send “political spam (E-Mail)”. Do you see similarities between the two? Differences? Explain.