October 6, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/6, I distributed one handout, my version of the Katko v. Briney case brief. We spent most of the class going over aspects of the Kimball case brief, due Thursday. We went over proper citation form for Maine Supreme Court decisions after 1996, including Kimball. We talked about the difference between evidence offered for impeachment, versus evidence offered for the truth of the statement (substantive evidence). We talked about review de novo by the appellate court, versus review for clear error or for abuse of discretion. We also went over the difference between an objective versus a subjective standard for judging circumstances. We went over the issues in Kimball, both their number and their substance. We reviewed the format for the issues, and talked about what "facts" are. After this discussion, we finished up our review of the Katko (spring gun) case brief (though not of the case itself). The assignment for Thursday 10/8 is to finish up work on your Kimball case brief, due at the beginning of class. (If you cannot be in class, remember to email your case brief to me by the beginning of class, and make sure that you get a confirmation from me.) On Thursday we will also go over the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises, and the kinds of authority cited in Katko.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 10/6, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Hobby Lobby outline; a comment key to the numbered comments that I made on some outlines; and the 1918 Sedition Act. I handed back the Hobby Lobby outlines, and we discussed them a little. We returned briefly to Kim Davis and reviewed the part of the Preliminary Injunction that discussed her claim under the Kentucky RFRA, especially the existence of a substantial burden. We then began our discussion of free speech. We discussed the scope of the free speech protection regarding prior restraints versus punishment after the fact, and saw what Holmes in Schenck had to say about that. We looked at the special circumstance of war, and how it affects free speech protections. We went over three theories of why free speech guarantees are justified in the first place. We looked at the language of the Sedition Act under which Schenck was convicted. Finally, we looked at how close to success the incitement must be in order to remove it from the protections of the First Amendment. On Thursday, we will finish our discussion of Schenck. The assignment for Thursday 10/8 is to review Schenck and Abrams, previously assigned) and to read in addition Gitlow (through p. 212).