Sexually Explicit/Not Obscene Stanley wrinkle possession of obscene materials in home is protected.

Young v. American is not a content based restriction because it is just using the content to put them in a classification and set different sets of rules for this classification from other motion pictures. They are not eliminating this content just saying if you want to consume this content you have to consume it in a particular place. They are not focused on the content but the secondary effects of these theatres showing these contents. How does this work with Erznonznik? Renton confirms that they are going

In Almeda they had a density limit to these bookstores. You could not have more than one adult book store in one bookstore because they did not want an adult stripmall. This uses intermediate scrutiny. Dissent believes that LA is trying to run these out of business. There is little social value to the content and they have some evidence and support it is okay. New York V. Ferber This is different from miller because here we are concerned with the effects child porn has on children including. They are saying there is an alternative to those like in film that feel the need to have younger characters have the alternative or work around that you can just get a young look adult actor/actress. Regular porn you are just concerned with the person harmed who accidently comes across it. With Child porn you are harming a child who cannot consent to the treatment. We have made a judgment that this is on the level of snuff film and we made a societal judgment that with this stuff we have a different set of rules. What about the using actors that look like children. The court said you cannot ban this material. The issue here is what happens with Romeo and Juliet as this is a big idea in the literary world. It is in a lot of placesso now what do we do..? Weve got many stories about young attractive females. Regulation of Protected speech +No signs law- is okay because it is not content based. If nobody gets to talk about..total bans are not so hard ..just have to have some sort of reason. A courthouse could ban all people from wearing t-shirts but cannot ban just wearing band t-shirts. +No political signs This has a very high scrutiny government will have to have a compelling state interest here ->Strict Scrutiny

+No republican signs- because this is a viewpoint based restriction which will never survive. -> Strict Scruitny +Time, place and manner neutral expressions intermediate scrutiny +Expressive conduct Why do we treat this differently than words? Wednsday 10:30 start time. 1118-1151 Restriction on speakers If restriction is based on specific person that cannot speak we have to look to see if the restriction isbased on the role they play or the specific content of what they are trying to say. OBrien Neutral Speech/expressions Here the court is expressing that this is just a plausible interest in protecting these cards. 1. Is the law content neutral (Unrelated to expression) you have a plausible reason for why you need to do this ie. You need to protect the selective service system. 2. Is there important govt interest (unrelated to the suppression of an idea 3. Is it narrowly tailored to this interest (are there alternatives to then means of this interest) This could not likely be incitement because by burning your draft card because this does not seem like a way to get everyone to start a riot.the message to the crowd seems to obscure to really present that message to the crowd. he is not directing it at anyone and it does not seem like anyone really cares Arcara: They were not targeting the bookstore, they were targeting the prostitution and the acara case says they can shut the whole thing down because of having prostitution.

Flag Burning Spence: What is the speaker trying to do and does anyone understand what it means. Holder: They are using a heightened level of scrutiny like in Cohen case. There substantial government interest is prevent the assistance of terrorism. The government makes the connection of the assistance of terrorism because even though the plaintiff says they are just trying to help the civilian side of things because the civilian side and the terror side of the organization are not separated and are comingled. Further by helping the organizations of the civilian side allows them to allocate more money on the terror side. The more latitude is because they do not want to undermine United States foreign policy so they are differing to congress and the executive branch that they can determine what is helping terrorism and what is not.

1151 -1178 A particular kind of speech is being regulated, so some kind of heightened scrutiny is used. Barnes v. Glen Theatres Is this speech? Speech has to have words. Nude dancing is not speech is more likely an expression. Here nude dancing is expressive conduct, because it is expressing something about themselves vs. regular conduct which is not meant to express something about themselves. There is a morality interest and there is a prevention of secondary criminal effects. Obrien is intermediate scrutiny but it only works if law is about not limiting expression of an idea. Public forums and Public Property Early on there was no right to use the public forum as the government felt it was no different then someone regulating their private property. Later on in Hague the court says the public areas have been held in trust for people to use publicly, where people have traditionally assembled and exchanged ideas and talk and speak. We have to have a market place for ideas. There are two things the govt may do to limit speech in the public forum are discrimination and access . Standard less discretion are treated like a content less based discretion. Seems like just the possibility that one person gets to decide what speech is allowed and what is not allowed. There is an impulse to always censor-> this is a natural tendency, they cant help themselves. Cox met the correct licensing/permitting standard in cox, because it was just about time, place and manner. And the govt has an interest in maintaining the streets and public order. The access piece of this. In scheinder the down wanted to ban speech via leaflets. Leaflets are an important alternative for people who have less means to share their ideas. In the access piece we are concerned with total medium bans, in terms of sweeping too broadly. Kovacs. V, Cooper They said this is not a total ban on sharing ideas via a loud speaker. Because the ordinance onlys ban loud speakers making loud and raucus. If we did not sound trucks at all this would be like Schneider. Unlike the leafleting this, loud speakers, is not a historic means of speech. City of Leadue where they city ban the use of signs is like the Schneider case leafleting was banned.

Significance government interest without reference to content of the regulated speech. Here the significant interest is orderly movement at the fair. It is without reference because anyone can register for a permit at the booth. The rule does not prevent from standing outside the fair and hand out stuff. Further it does not prevent you from walking around fair and just talking. Member of city council v. taxpayers for Vincent. Said that ordniance could ban signs in public,because they are still allow ing signs in private property and they have an interest in reducing clutter and

littering. Why is this different from city of ladue? Because in city of ladeue the govt was trying to ban on private property. This is different because people here can still put signs on their private property.