November 3, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/3, we first went over the Maine statute regarding Hindering Apprehension, and looked at what part of our law might cover Ms. Mobbley's behavior if she were charged in Maine. We then discussed Holland in terms of the existence of common law crimes, the idea of mandatory reporting of crimes, and Maine law regarding both. We then went over Lawrence v. Texas. We talked about the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the two constitutional attacks on the Texas law (and why Kennedy chose the attack that he did), the classification of the right involved, and the level of Supreme Court scrutiny. We looked at the range of laws reflecting societal views of same sex relationships, from criminalizing the relationship, to criminalizing the act, to outlawing discrimination, to marriage equality. We will finish Lawrence on Thursday by completing a case brief issue for the case, and going over what Kennedy said in that case about marriage equality. The assignment for Thursday 11/5 is to read in the text through p. 82 (Glassford and Caperton).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/3, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) due 11/12, and the case involved in the assignment, Bible Believers v. Wayne County. We went over the requirements of the assignment. I also talked about two of the cases that constitute precedent for the 6th Circuit, Terminiello and Feiner. We then went through Stevens' opinion in Hill. We discussed the content-neutrality flow chart. We discussed some aspects of Scalia's dissent, but will start with his view of content-neutrality. The assignment for Thursday 11/5 is to begin work on the assignment, and also to read through p. 258 of the text (R.A.V.).


Assignment due Thursday, November 12, 2015

One recurring question that we’ve looked at is how much leeway the government is allowed when it decides to restrict speech because of the possibility that the speaker is or might be threatened with a hostile reception from onlookers or listeners. This assignment asks you to look at how the 6th Circuit looked at this issue in the recent case of Bible Believers v. Wayne County (also distributed today).

The assignment has three parts:
1) Summarize the constitutional position of the 6th Circuit majority (Clay’s opinion) regarding these four questions:
a) the correct interpretation of Supreme Court precedent (Feiner v. New York; Terminiello v. Chicago; the Civil-rights era cases – Edwards, Cox, Gregory) in the case;
b) the correct level of scrutiny (strict scrutiny or not) and why;
c) the proper role of the police, both under constitutional theory and under the facts of this case; and
d) what’s wrong with the other opinion (Rogers) and the position of that side.

2) Summarize the constitutional position of the 6th Circuit dissent (Rogers’ opinion) regarding these four questions:
a) the correct interpretation of Supreme Court precedent precedent (Feiner v. New York; Terminiello v. Chicago; the Civil-rights era cases – Edwards, Cox, Gregory) in the case;
b) the correct level of scrutiny (strict scrutiny or not) and why;
c) the proper role of the police, both under constitutional theory and under the facts of this case; and
d) what’s wrong with the other opinion (Clay) and the position of that side.

3) Discuss what rules are mentioned in three textbook cases, Texas v. Johnson, Cohen v. California, and Hill v. Colorado regarding how much leeway the government is allowed when it decides to restrict speech because of the possibility that the speaker is or might be threatened with a hostile reception from onlookers or listeners. How might those rules apply to the situation in Bible Believers?

Label each part of the paper (e.g. (1)(a)). The paper should be about 3 pages long. No outside research is required. Just rely on what the two 6th Circuit judges
tell you about precedent.

Do not give an introduction to the case. Do not recite the facts. Go right to summarizing and discussing. Quote only in snippets (if at all).
Here’s an (inaccurate) sample of what I’m anticipating for a section:

(1)(a): Clay believes that previous Supreme Court cases establish that deliberately provocative speech to a hostile crowd is subject to reasonable restriction by the government. Feiner is on point and should be followed. In both Feiner and the present case, the speaker was deliberately provoking hostility (baiting the crowd), and was therefore creating a clear and present danger that violence would break out. Terminiello is distinguishable because that case involved thrown pickaxes, and this case involves plastic water bottles. The civil rights era cases are distinguishable because, in those cases, the speaker was not addressing his remarks to the hostile members of the crowd. In short, there is no Supreme Court precedent that concludes that a speaker has a right to bait the audience and receive constitutional protection.

If you want to read the entire 6th Circuit opinion, it is available at
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0258p-06.pdf

If you want to see video of the event, you can go to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_8MO7IIlCw

Your papers will be graded on how well you complete the assignment and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Thursday 11/12, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Don’t look at other student’s papers, and don’t show your paper to other students. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.


IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.