snowpeach06 wrote:Unfortunately, I'm still lost as fuck in First Amendment. Are there even tests for half of the things covered? I can't tell, even after looking at Holly's outline.
Step 1 - is it a government actor?
Step 2 - what value of speech is it? (Low - inciting words, fighting words, obscene, etc... / Intermediate - commercial speech, suppression of conduct with incidental impact on "expression" / High - political, artistic, offensive, indecent)
Step 3 -
If not high-value, check to see if it is a content/viewpoint based classification under RAV, if so, slap on strict-scrutiny.
If commercial speech, apply CENTRAL HUDSON intermediate scrutiny (substantial govt interest, substantially related means, directly advancing interest).
If "expressive conduct," make sure regulation isn't targeting the "idea" behind the content, if so, slap on appropriate scrutiny re: the level of speech being suppressed; if not, then apply O'BRIEN intermediate scrutiny.
If a "time, place, manner" restriction on high-value speech, use HEFFRON factors (significant govt interest, narrowly tailored but not least restrictive, and leaves open ample alternative channels).
Finally, if just basic low-level speech, just make sure the regulation isn't "over-broad" or "vague," then apply rational basis scrutiny.