Law Commons^™

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa

Akron Law Review

“In its latest attempt to define a workable standard for obscenity rulings, the United States Supreme Court has held that children may not be included in a court's instruction as to the social group to whom the material would or would not be obscene. However, the Court held that sensitive persons and deviant groups may be included without unduly lowering the threshold of a finding of obscenity. Thus, Pinkus v. United States clarified the "community" whose judgment should define obscenity.”

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Commerical Speech And Advertising; Metpath, Inc. V. Imperato, Sheryl S. Kantz

Akron Law Review

"The decision of Metpath, Inc. v. Imperato is indicative of the growing trend of the judiciary toward affording "commercial speech" the protective shield of the first amendment. As shown by Metpath, where the concern is advertising by a medical clinic, speech with commercial overtones is afforded protection where a public interest in the subject and content of the speech is demonstrated. However, the perimeters of such protection have not been defined by this or previous decisions."

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno

Akron Law Review

“ ‘I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss L words and the words you can't say . . .the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves... the ones that will curve your spine [and] grow hair on your hands ....’ While this is the satiric opinion of George Carlin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a bare majority of the United States Supreme Court have embraced it as their genuine opinion.' They have decided to protect the public from the fate of hearing Carlin's social criticism regarding seven ‘dirty’ words.”

The Supreme Court And The Press: Freedom Or Privilege?, Sandra Bradley

Akron Law Review

This comment will examine the Supreme Court's spring, 1978 decisions as they affected first amendment rights, and will assess their impact upon the press. Particular emphasis will be placed on Zurcher v. Stanford Daily as it affects first amendment, as well as fourth amendment, protections.

Obscenity Law In Ohio, Richard H. Harris

Akron Law Review

Ohio's new obscenity statutes enacted in 1972 and made effective on January 1, 1974 are interesting to examine in light of recent Supreme Court holdings. The changes made in Ohio's obscenity statutes over the years reflect the Supreme Court's guidelines in varying degrees. Before looking at some of these recent statutes, as well as the present one in effect today, it is necessary to review the major Supreme Court decisions which have set these guidelines.

Mathew Fraser Sheds His Consititutional Rights To Freedom Of Speech At The Schoolhouse Gates, Karrie M. Kalai

Akron Law Review

The Constitution does not bestow an "unbridled license giving immunity for every possible use of language." The first amendment is not the guardian of unregulated talkativeness. Accordingly, the state's power to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults, and the well-being of children is one subject entirely within the state's constitutional power to regulate. While children clearly have some first amendment rights, these rights differ in important respects from the rights enjoyed by adults. As the Supreme Court noted, "the world of children is not strictly part of the adult realm of free …

Freedom Of Speech And The Problem Of The Lawful Harmful Public Reaction: Adult Use Cases Of Renton And Mini Theatres, Charles H. Clarke

Akron Law Review

The constitutional right of freedom of speech protects the speech of adult erotic entertainment. The state, consequently, can not suppress such speech unless it is obscene. This constitutional protection helped to turn adult erotic entertainment into one of the nation's growth industries.

The constitutionally protected speech of adult erotic entertainment includes explicit sex films, nude dancing and erotic books. Various adult land uses sprung up to satisfy an apparent large public demand for this entertainment. Adult film theaters, of course, show filmed reproductions of live sex on a big screen. Some taverns offer nude dancing. Some adult bookstores sell more …

Kuhlmeier V. Hazelwood School District: The First Amendment Rights Of Public High School Students, Edward S. Muse

Akron Law Review

In Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood School District, the Supreme Court held that high school students' first amendment rights were not violated when their principal deleted articles from the school newspaper. The Court stated that the school newspaper was not a "public forum" for expression which normally receives full first amendment protection. The Court further held that the school principal did not violate students' first amendment rights when he restricted the printing of articles due to the effect that they could have on other students.

The Supreme Court's decision will undoubtedly curtail students' rights to free speech and press. This casenote …

Hate Speech, Free Speech And The University, Robert W. Mcgee

Akron Law Review

Students and faculty face possible retribution for expressing unpopular ideas, making statements that may be offensive to someone, or even for asking legitimate questions that deal with race, sex, ethnicity or sexual preference. A "thought police" mentality has infested the university, just as McCarthyism did in the 1950s. This article explores the current state of this mentality and discusses the problems inherent in trying to preserve and protect the right of free speech in the university

Lorillard Tobacco Co. V. Reilly: The Supreme Court Sends First Amendment Guarantees Up In Smoke By Applying The Commercial Speech Doctrine To Content-Based Regulations, Kerri L. Keller

Akron Law Review

This note examines why the Supreme Court’s application of the commercial speech doctrine to purely “content-based” regulations erodes First Amendment guarantees. Section II provides a brief history of the First Amendment and discusses the different levels of judicial scrutiny applied in First Amendment cases. Section III provides the statement of facts, the procedural history, and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lorillard. Finally, Part IV examines the decision in Lorillard and discusses why the Court should have applied strict scrutiny to the regulations at issue. It further discusses how the Court’s refusal to apply strict scrutiny to content-based commercial …