This topic confuses me to no end, and I need to get it straightened out for tomorrow. Please let me know if I'm wrong about anything.
Public forum - regulation of speech based on content must meet strict scrutiny. Content neutral regulations must meet rational basis.
Limited public forum - regulation of speech must be viewpoint neutral and must meet intermediate scrutiny.
Nonpublic forum - all regulation of speech must meet rational basis.
Public forums = sidewalks, public parks, streets
Limited = courthouse steps, public libraries, public schools
Commercial speech regulations need only meet rational basis, right?
Also, what the hell is all this "narrowly tailored" shit? I went through law school and bar prep twice and that term still makes no sense to me.
Levels of scrutiny for speech Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
encore1101
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am
Re: Levels of scrutiny for speech
"Narrowly tailored" just means, in theory, that the regulation burdens speech no more than it needs to achieve the compelling government interest.
For example, assume that the government has a compelling government interest in forbidding television shows from showing depictions of terroristic attacks (just for sake of example).
In order to address this interest, they ban depictions of any crime. That would not be narrowly tailored, as the law banning depictions of any crime is more broad than it needs to be.
For example, assume that the government has a compelling government interest in forbidding television shows from showing depictions of terroristic attacks (just for sake of example).
In order to address this interest, they ban depictions of any crime. That would not be narrowly tailored, as the law banning depictions of any crime is more broad than it needs to be.
