overriding constitutional principle in California

1988(Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 [ 96 L.Ed. 1098 , 72 S.Ct. 777 ] []; Winters v. New York Co. (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [ 92 L.Ed. 840 , 68 S.Ct. 665 ] [].)” (Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co. (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 383, 387 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 511 ] [Olivia I].) “First Amendment rights are accorded a preferred place in our democratic society.

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1988(Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 [ 96 L.Ed. 1098 , 72 S.Ct. 777 ] []; Winters v. New York Co. (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [ 92 L.Ed. 840 , 68 S.Ct. 665 ] [].)” (Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co. (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 383, 387 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 511 ] [Olivia I].) “First Amendment rights are accorded a preferred place in our democratic society.

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1988(Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 [ 96 L.Ed. 1098 , 72 S.Ct. 777 ] []; Winters v. New York Co. (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [ 92 L.Ed. 840 , 68 S.Ct. 665 ] [].)” (Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co. (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 383, 387 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 511 ] [Olivia I].) “First Amendment rights are accorded a preferred place in our democratic society.

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1998(Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444 .) “The overriding constitutional principle is that maintenance of an action in the forum must not offend ‘traditional conception^] of fair play and substantial justice.’ (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154 , 160 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).) The defendant’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State’ must be such that the defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559, 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980

1998(Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444 .) “The overriding constitutional principle is that maintenance of an action in the forum must not offend ‘traditional conception^] of fair play and substantial justice.’ (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154 , 160 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).) The defendant’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State’ must be such that the defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559, 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980

1998(Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444 .) “The overriding constitutional principle is that maintenance of an action in the forum must not offend ‘traditional conception^] of fair play and substantial justice.’ (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154 , 160 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).) The defendant’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State’ must be such that the defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559, 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980

1998(Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444 .) “The overriding constitutional principle is that maintenance of an action in the forum must not offend ‘traditional conception^] of fair play and substantial justice.’ (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154 , 160 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).) The defendant’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State’ must be such that the defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559, 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980

1998(Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444 .) “The overriding constitutional principle is that maintenance of an action in the forum must not offend ‘traditional conception^] of fair play and substantial justice.’ (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154 , 160 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).) The defendant’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State’ must be such that the defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559, 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980

1998(Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444 .) “The overriding constitutional principle is that maintenance of an action in the forum must not offend ‘traditional conception^] of fair play and substantial justice.’ (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154 , 160 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).) The defendant’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State’ must be such that the defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559, 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1981Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539 [65 L.Ed.2d *493 319, 328-329, 100 S.Ct. 2326 ]; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 263, 270-271 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 ]; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 ]; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700-701 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 ].) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. ( Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C.

1981Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539 [65 L.Ed.2d *493 319, 328-329, 100 S.Ct. 2326 ]; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 263, 270-271 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 ]; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 ]; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700-701 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 ].) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. ( Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C.

1981Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539 [65 L.Ed.2d *493 319, 328-329, 100 S.Ct. 2326 ]; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 263, 270-271 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 ]; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 ]; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700-701 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 ].) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. ( Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C.

1981Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539 [65 L.Ed.2d *493 319, 328-329, 100 S.Ct. 2326 ]; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 263, 270-271 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 ]; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 ]; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700-701 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 ].) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. ( Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C.

1981Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539 [65 L.Ed.2d *493 319, 328-329, 100 S.Ct. 2326 ]; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 263, 270-271 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 ]; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 ]; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700-701 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 ].) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. ( Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C.

1981Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539 [65 L.Ed.2d *493 319, 328-329, 100 S.Ct. 2326 ]; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 263, 270-271 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 ]; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 ]; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700-701 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 ].) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. ( Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C.

1981Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539 [65 L.Ed.2d *493 319, 328-329, 100 S.Ct. 2326 ]; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 263, 270-271 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 ]; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 ]; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700-701 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 ].) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. ( Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C.

1981Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539 [65 L.Ed.2d *493 319, 328-329, 100 S.Ct. 2326 ]; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 263, 270-271 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 ]; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 ]; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700-701 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 ].) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. ( Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C.

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1981Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances. (3) "Analysis of this appeal commences with recognition of the overriding constitutional principle that material communicated by the public media, including fictional material such as the television drama here at issue, is generally to be accorded protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ( Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 501 []; Winters v. New York (1948) 333 U.S. 507, 510 [].)" ( Olivia N. v. National Broadcas

1980However, if persons are excluded from jury service, analysis of the propriety of the exclusion will depend upon whether the persons left out comprise a constitutionally cognizable class, as defined in Duren, supra, 439 U.S. at page 364 [58 L.Ed.2d at pages 586-587], If they do—as in the cases at least of traditional minorities such as blacks, persons of Mexican descent, and women—then the court will apply the Taylor-Duren analysis, which effectively presumes that the exclusion resulted in a nonneutral jury.

1980However, if persons are excluded from jury service, analysis of the propriety of the exclusion will depend upon whether the persons left out comprise a constitutionally cognizable class, as defined in Duren, supra, 439 U.S. at page 364 [58 L.Ed.2d at pages 586-587].