Important Information
LAPS, SPEECH TESTS, 3 PRONG
1st Clause...Establishment Clause
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment clause of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
LEMON 3 PRONG TEST
- must not create excessive entanglement
- the laws principle or primary effect should neither advance nor inhibit religion
- court looks to see if the law has a secular legislative purpose
Other Information
- Based upon Lemon v. Kurtzman, court ruled that the superintendent allowing reimbursement to catholic school teachers was not allowed
- Violated the Establishment Clause
MILLER TEST AKA 3 PRONG OBSCENITY TEST
- Does the work appeal to the prurient: (having or encouraging son excessive intrest in sexual matters) interest?
- Does the work describe or illustrate in a patently offensive way (openly offensive to the general public)
- Does work lack LAPS
Background Information
- Obscenity- potentially offensive content of a specific time
- This test is to determine whether speech or expression of any kind can be considered obscene or not
- Based opon Miller v. California: Marvin Miller was advertising and sending out brochures that portrayed sexual pornographic material
Can the speech be criminalized?
SPEECH TESTS
Clear and Present Danger Test - Schenck v. US 1919 government may silence speech or expression when there is a clear and present danger that such speech will bring about harm to someone or something
Bad tendency test- Gitlow v. New York 1924 any speech that has the tendency to create crime or disturb the public piece can be silenced
Clear and probable danger Test: Dennis V. US 1951: Government could suppress speech to avoid danger, even if the probability of the dangerous result was relatively remote
Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 (Imminent lawless test)- gives more to 1st amendment claims and less to concerns about security and order MORE POWER TO THE PEOPLE
By: Paetyn Burish and Rebecca Seastrand