SCENARIO #1

For many years, Charleston has had to deal with the vandalism and defacement of public property
caused by unauthorized graffiti. In an effort to stop the damage, the city banned the sale of aerosol
spray-paint cans to persons under 21 years of age. The new rules also prohibited people from
possessing spray-paint cans on property other than their own. Within a year, five people under age 21
were cited for violations of these regulations, and 123 individuals were arrested for actually making
graffiti.

Addy Arrow-Saul and other artists wished to create graffiti-inspired art using spray paint on traditional
surfaces, such as canvas, wood, and clothing. Unable to buy spray paint in the city or to carry it into the
city from elsewhere, Arrow-Saul and others filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other young
artists against the mayor. The plaintiffs claimed that, among other things, the rules violated their right
to freedom of speech.

Please discuss the following two issues raised by the plaintiffs in this suit: (Note, the second issue
appears in the next short answer question prompt)

Issue 1: The plaintiff's claim that the rules violated their right to freedom of speech. In order to receive
full credit, please discuss:

1. What is the type/category of speech in this case and what does that generally mean in terms of
the protection it receives from the courts. (5 points)

2. Are these rules "time, place & manner" restrictions or rules restricting content of speech, and of
what significance is that in terms of the way the court will analyze this claim. (10 points)

3. What do you think is the plaintiffs' chance of success? (5 points)

Please # your answers as you work your way through your full response.

1. From a graffiti artist's perspective, graffiti is considered as informative speech, in that the artist
means to convey a message to the public with their work. However, graffiti that is done by an
individual on someone else's property without the consent of the owner is vandalism according to the
law and is not protected by the first amendment. But in this case, the plaintiffs do not use aresol spray
paint cans for vandalism but for individual artistic expression. Freedom of expression is protected by
the first amendment if its contents will not cause imminent harm to any person or their property.

2. Time, place, and manner regarding freedom of speech is aimed to regulate the content of speech
and determines what can and cannot be protected by the first amendment. Time, place, and manner
regulations stipulate that if the government restricts free speech, it must be content neutral, narrowly
tailored to serve a governmental interest, and must leave alternative channels for communicating the
speaker’s message. The new state regulations are not narrowly tailored because the restrictions are
too broad in that they aim to prevent vandalism and defacement of public property in general, but
causes the boys to be subject to fines even though their activities are not vandalistic, which imposes
on the rights of free speech by the young men because it severely limits the ability of the boys to
engage in harmless expressive activity, which is creating art pieces using the spray paint. Since those
who were caught and arrested for vandalism by graffiti were not minors, it proves that fining those
for having spray paint under the age of 21 and/or simply being in possession of spray paint cans on
property that isn’t theirs is not necessary to combat unauthorized graffiti.

3. The plaintiffs will have a decent chance proving that their freedom of speech has been violated,
because their art does not cause any harm to anyone’s private property, or to public property owned
by the city of Charleston. Under the new regulations, they are subject to punishments which are
intended to target vandals.

SCENARIO #1, continued

Scenario is the same and copied here for reference

For many years, Charleston has had to deal with the vandalism and defacement of public property
caused by unauthorized graffiti. In an effort to stop the damage, the city banned the sale of aerosol
spray-paint cans to persons under 21 years of age. The new rules also prohibited people from
possessing spray-paint cans on property other than their own. Within a year, five people under age 21
were cited for violations of these regulations, and 123 individuals were arrested for actually making
graffiti.

Addy Arrow-Saul and other artists wished to create graffiti-inspired art using spray paint on legal
surfaces, such as canvas, wood, and clothing. Unable to buy spray paint in the city or to carry it into the
city from elsewhere, Arrow-Saul and others filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other young
artists against the mayor. The plaintiffs claimed that, among other things, the rules violated their right
to freedom of speech.

Please discuss the second issue raised by the plaintiffs in this suit:

Issue 2: The plaintiffs also claim that the rules are an equal protection violation because they apply only
to persons under age 21.

1. Please discuss the strength and weaknesses of this equal protection claim. Identify and explain
why equal protection test (i.e. what level of scrutiny) will be used by the court in analyzing the
claim. (10 points)

One weakness of this claim is that the regulation which imposes fines on anyone caught with spray
paint on property that is not theirs, by itself, is technically not age specific. However, the strength of
their equal protection argument is the simple fact that any adult in possession of spray paint is
immune to these fines, despite the large number of arrests made on individuals caught in the act of
vandalism within the year comprising completely of adults. So, for a minor to be fined for possessing a
spray paint can anywhere other than their property is unfair, because this means that they can be
fined for transporting these cans from one place to another anywhere in the city, even though when
caught there is no reasonable suspicion that they committed a crime based solely on the fact that
they're in possession of these cans. This is a clear violation of their 14th amendment rights due the
fact that these young artists are at such risk for these unfair fines even though they have made it clear
that their use of these cans was not for vandalism. Regarding the level of scrutiny used by the courts,
they will use rational basis scrutiny to analyze the plaintiffs claim and determine if the new city
regulations on aerosol cans unfairly discriminates by age and does not assist in preventing
unauthorized graffiti from happening. They will use rational basis review on their equal protection
claim, because its classification does not concern gender, race, or national origin.

2. Do you believe the plaintiffs will be successful on this claim? (5 points)

The plaintiffs may have a chance since the new regulations enacted by the state did not prevent
unauthorized graffiti from happening, as there were over 100 arrests made in one year against
individuals for making graffiti, all over the age of 21. The five who were cited for violating these
regulations had not even been caught doing graffiti, they were just caught possessing spray cans.
Therefore, Addy arrow-Saul and his artist friends are at risk of facing similar fines and penalties,
despite them not being vandals themselves and using spray paint for creative art that is not on
another's property. The courts will analyze whether these regulations that have negatively impacted
the plaintiffs are rationally related to the city’s interest (stopping unauthorized graffiti), and they’ll
find that the regulations that have negatively impacted the plaintiffs are arbitrary and not necessary
for preventing unauthorized graffiti in the city.

SCENARIO #2

Cora Lynne, a resident of South Carolina, wishes to bring an invasion of privacy lawsuit against the Palm
Meadow Company. because the Palm Meadow Company used a photograph of her, without her
consent, in an advertisement for one of the company's products. Lynne will seek monetary damages of
$150,000 from the Palm Meadow Company, whose principal offices are located in New York City.

The Post & Courier, a Charleston, SC, newspaper was the only print media outlet in which the
advertisement was published. However, Graham Edwin, the owner of Savannah's Best Boutique, a
locally owned shop in Savannah, Georgia, that sells Palm Meadow Company products, saw the
advertisement in the Post & Courier newspaper when someone left a copy of it on the ferry that
shuttles people between Charleston and Savannah. Edwin clipped and framed the advertisement to put
in their shop window in an attempt to draw more customers in to the Boutique.

The Palm Meadow Company also placed the advertisement on the firm's website. This website may be
viewed by anyone with Internet access, regardless of the viewer's geographic location.

1. In order for a court to hear and decide Lynne's case, what are the basic judicial
requirements? Please briefly explain each. (5 points

The court must have jurisdiction, venue, and standing. A court has jurisdiction over a case if it
involves property located within the state, regardless of the residency of the defendant and
plaintiff. A court can hear and decide a case if its subject matter fits in that specific court’s
jurisdiction. Venue is the appropriate place for a trial within jurisdiction, and normally is where
the violation occurred or where the defendant resides. Standing requires that a party must have
legal, tangible, personal interest in the lawsuit to be considered a party.
 2. Where, in a geographic sense, may Lynne properly file and pursue her lawsuit against
XYZ? Please list all possible options, briefly noting why each qualifies as an option. (5 points)

She would be more inclined to file her case within a court that has general subject-matter jurisdiction
because of the amount she is seeking in her lawsuit from Palm Meadow. SC circuit court is her best
bet because they have the general jurisdiction to hear her claim and has limited appellate jurisdiction
on magistrate’s court, and because the settlement amount is larger than amounts magistrate courts
handle. Even though the defendant is based in NY, the violation they’re being sued for took place
within an area under state court’s jurisdiction, so filing the suit in the state court system is her best
bet. Based on how much money in monetary damages that she seeks, the likelihood of Palm Meadow
settling with her before trial is unlikely. If she is not happy with the settlement reached after the trial
in the court of common pleas, she can appeal to the SC court of appeals to review her case, then to
the SC supreme court if necessary.

3. Must Lynne pursue her case in state court, or does she have the option of litigating in federal
court? Why or why not? (5 points)
She has the option of pursuing her case in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, because her
residency is in a different state than the defendant’s principal offices/headquarters, and the amount
she seeks exceeds $75,000. Since each party resides in a different state, she can appeal to federal
courts to look at her case. Also, because the right to privacy is a fundamental right, federal court
jurisdiction has bled into state court jurisdiction.

4. What about the questions of venue and standing? (5 points)

She has standing in this case because the violation to privacy in question was the use of her face in
an advertisement by Palm Meadow without her consent for commercial gain, therefore she has
legal standing in this case. Regarding venue, the case can be handled in the state of South
Carolina because she lives in SC and the violation occurred in the state that she resides in and the
defendant conducts business in.

BONUS QUESTION:

Complete this sentence: In any civil suit, the plaintiff must prove their legal cause of action by a
preponderance of evidence.

(Hint: what is the burden of proof?)