Assignment 1: Spring 2016 One of the best ways to learn the rules of law is to apply them to hypothetical situations. That's why I'm asking you to analyze one case problem with several parts involving material discussed in Lessons 1 and 2 (including the discussion forums) and chapters 1 -3 of the textbook. Please refer to Practice Exercise 2-2 for examples of this type of legal analysis. The first step is to read the facts of the case problem carefully and e-mail me if you have any questions. The next step is to identify the correct area (or category) of law that is applicable to each question of the case problem.

In other words, does the question deal with sedition or fighting words or prior restraint or time, place and manner rules or another area (or category) of law covered in Lesson 2? This part of the analysis is essential because the legal rules differ depending on the area of law under consideration. Once you determine the area/category of law that's applicable (and sometimes it's given), then the last step is to apply the correct legal rules to the facts of the case problem and to state your conclusions. Here's the case hypothetical, followed by instructions on how to prepare your assignment.

Case Hypothetical Let's assume that Gloria Santos is the Green Party nominee, campaigning for the open congressional seat held by Representative Jim McDermott, who decided not to run for reelection this year. People opposing her candidacy have already created a website dedicated to her defeat. The website's domain name is GloriaSantosforCongress.com, and it is the first website that comes up in an Internet search for information about her candidacy.

The website labels her a Communist and includes false statements about her positions on the environment, workers' rights, low-income housing and police accountability, among other issues. The website also attacks her character and fitness to hold political office, calling her a liar, a thief and an illegal immigrant. It promises to publish detailed accounts of her anti-business policies and illegal activities throughout the campaign season. Gloria Santos and her supporters are outraged and contact the city prosecutor, who is her friend, asking for his help in shutting down the website. The city prosecutor asks a local judge to order the website's creator to shut down the website immediately before most voters become aware of it because of its lies, deception and character assassination.

1. Would such an order be constitutional? In other words, should the local judge, using equity law, order the website's creator to shut down the website? First, identify the specific area (category) of law that directly relates to this situation; second, identify the theory or interpretation of the First Amendment that is most applicable to this type of situation; third, apply the relevant legal rules; and, fourth, explain your conclusion.

Continuing this case hypothetical, let's assume that Gloria Santos' supporters want to hold a political rally in Red Square on the UW-Seattle campus from noon to 1 p.m. on Monday, Memorial Day. They asked the appropriate university administrators for a permit, and some administrators expressed concern that people would assume that the university was supporting her candidacy if they allowed the political rally in Red Square.

2. Should university administrators allow this political rally? In other words, would this political rally be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment? First, identify the specific area (category) of law that relates to this situation; second, apply the correct legal rules to the facts of the case problem; and, third, explain your conclusion.

Let's assume Santos' supporters did hold the political rally, and Santos spoke at it. During her speech, she called for a political revolution where ordinary citizens would unite to overthrow the billionaires and capitalists who control this country's economy and political system. Several opponents to her candidacy attended the rally and were offended by her call for a revolution. One man shouted that she and her supporters should be arrested for sedition because they were advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government and the country's economic system.

3. Should Santos and her supporters be arrested for sedition? In other words, would such arrests be constitutional? Please apply the correct legal rules and explain your conclusion.

Another man yelled that Santos was a dangerous Communist and would be a threat to the Seattle way of life if she were elected to Congress. He then tried to push his way to the podium, and when two of her supporters stopped him, he screamed insults directly at them for several minutes. Several bystanders urged police officers on the scene to arrest the man for fighting words.

4. Should the police arrest the man for fighting words under these circumstances? In other words, would such arrests be constitutional? Please apply the correct legal rules and explain your conclusion.

Here's how to prepare and submit your assignment.

1. Create a Word document and enter your full name at the beginning of your assignment.

2. Begin each of your answers with the specific question number that you're answering. For example, when you answer question 1, please start your answer with "Question 1." or 1. This will help me grade your assignment.

3. Refer back to the question after you finish a draft of your answer to make sure that you answered the question completely and didn't get side tracked into discussing other unrelated areas of media law.

4. Proofread carefully (double-check spelling, grammar, accuracy).

5. Upload your assignment to the website. You are responsible for making sure that your assignment is posted on the website by the deadline so please double check that it uploaded successfully. If you have trouble uploading your assignment, please e-mail me before the deadline.

6. Save a copy of your work in case something happens to the uploaded file.

This rule applies even if you are ill or have computer problems. Otherwise, there will be an automatic penalty of .5 for every 24 hours late. For example, a 4.0 grade would drop to a 3.5 if the assignment is submitted five minutes after the deadline and to a 3.0 if it is submitted 24 hours and five minutes late. Note: This assignment is worth 10 percent of your course grade. Please refer to the grading rubric to see how I will evaluate it. Here's the grading scale that I use for the four assignments: http://faculty.washington.edu/scstroup/Gradescale.html.