SCOPE AND EMPHASIS: The purpose of this course is to familiarize students with judicial/constitutional doctrine, with a focus on selected issues of contemporary importance such as discrimination, individual rights, and dispersion of governmental power.

REQUIREMENTS: (1) Students should read all of the casebook and supplement assignments according to the above schedule. (2) Students should check the course TWEN page before each class for announcements and other information posted by the instructor or by other students. (3) Students will take a traditional, in-class, closed-book final examination consisting of five essay questions, each weighted equally. The questions will be based on issues raised in the casebook and/or class discussion.

ATTENDANCE: The ABA and Widener University policy is that students must attend at least 22.4 classes without exception. No excuses can be accepted for failing to meet this residency requirement. Anyone who misses 5.7 or more classes will receive a course grade of "F"; the instructor will endeavor, but does not guarantee, to notify students who are approaching this limit. Arriving late or leaving early is counted as a partial absence (i.e., every 12 minutes or major fraction thereof = 0.1 cut). A student who misses the roll call at the beginning of class is irrebuttably presumed to be absent unless he/she makes his/her presence known to the instructor immediately after class.

COMMUNICATION: Students are encouraged to contact the instructor at any time, either privately via email or phone, or publicly via the TWEN bulletin board for the course. Individual meetings can be arranged at a mutually convenient time and place.

GRADING: The course grade will be determined by the grade received on the final examination, which may be raised or lowered by one grade (e.g., from B+ to A-, or from C to C-) on the basis of the student's class participation. The instructor will be available in January to review the final exams with any student who is interested and to suggest means for improvement in writing successful essay answers.

Selected First Amendment "Macro-Issues"

(1) Access Theory: Freedom v. Competition; Speaking v. Hearing; Kant v. Mill

Associated Press v. United States (1945)

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969)

Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee (1973)

Miami Herald Broacasting Co. v. Tornillo (1974)

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission (1983)

Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Commission (1983)*

Syracuse Peace Council v. Federal Communications Commission (1990)

(2) "Strings Attached" & "Waiver of Rights" v. "Constitutional Right to a Subsidy"

Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936)

American Communications Association v. Douds (1950)

*Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Commission (1983)

Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (1983)

Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters of California (1984)

Central Intelligence Agency v. Sims (1985)

Arkansas Writers' Project v. Ragland (1987)

Leathers v. Medlock (1991)

Rust v. Sullivan (1991)

Weathers v. Churchill (1994)

Rosenberger v. Regents and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995)

Can you think of any other cases that should be included on either list?

---

Minimum Fault Standard for Each LIBEL Element	At Common Law	After New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)	After Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)	After Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985)	After Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986)
Publication	At least negligence	At least negligence	At least negligence	At least negligence	At least negligence
Identification	Strict liability	Strict liability, but must actually identify	Strict liability, but must actually identify	Strict liability, but must actually identify	Strict liability, but must actually identify
Defamation	Strict liability	Strict liability	Strict liability, but P who cannot prove actual malice (as to falsity) must prove actual injury	Strict liability, but P who cannot prove actual malice (as to falsity) must prove actual injury	Strict liability, but P who cannot prove actual malice (as to falsity) must prove actual injury
Falsity	Strict liability, with burden on D to prove truth	Strict liability, with burden on D to prove truth; but if P is a public official being criticized for performance of official duties, then P must prove actual malice	(Topic is of public concern): At least negligence, with burden on D to prove truth; if P is seeking presumed or punitive damages, or if P is a public figure seeking ANY damages, then P must prove actual malice	(Topic is of private concern): Same as before, but as long as P is a private figure, then negligence is sufficient to receive presumed or punitive damages	If there is a media D and the topic is of public concern, then P (public or private figure) must prove falsity     © 1992 by Wm. M. Sloane

---

<bgsound src="/pa/sloane/images/wildblue.wav" loop=infinite>

Life After Law School: Aim High!