Freedom of the Press
Published on Nov 18, 2015
APGOPO Civil Liberties Project
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Freedom of the Press
Monica Drzewicki, Emily Klein, Brittany Timbario, Kirsten Whitt
First Amendment
- Original: Right to print newspapers/other print without gov. restrictions
- Current: Similar to the original. However, gov. restrictions apply.
- Video Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puxdQRxlzWQ
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Some values the founders saw as inherent in the principle of freedom of the press were " the search and attainment of truth, scientific progress, cultural development, the increase of virtue among the people, the holding of governmental officials to
republican values, the strengthening of community, and a check upon self-aggrandizing politicians".
Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puxdQRxlzWQ
Some values the founders saw as inherent in the principle of freedom of the press were " the search and attainment of truth, scientific progress, cultural development, the increase of virtue among the people, the holding of governmental officials to
republican values, the strengthening of community, and a check upon self-aggrandizing politicians".
Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puxdQRxlzWQ
Political Cartoon
What message is the cartoonist attempting to get across?
Political Cartoon
What is the message of this cartoon?
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
- Question: Did the "gag law" violate the First Amendment?
- Decision: Yes, this was unconstitutional.
- Significance: Established the prior restraint doctrine.
- Impact: This doctrine will be used again in New York Times v. US.
New York times v. united states (1971)
- Question: Did Nixon's administration's efforts violate the 1st Amendment?
- Decision: Yes. Gov. didn't overcome "heavy presumption" of prior restraint
- Significance: Reaffirmed prior restraint doctrine that was established in Near v. Minnesota.
- Impact: Restricted how the government could use national security as reason
roth v. united states (1957)
- Question: Do these restrictions against the people violate the 1st Am.?
- Decision: No. Obscenity was not within the area protected by 1st Am.
- Significance: This clarified that not everything said is protected.
- Impact: A test was created to classify obscenity.
Branzburg v. hayes (1972)
- Question: Are the requirements an abridgment to 1st Am. rights?
- Decision: No, this is not a abridgment/violation.
- Significance: Gave law enforcement a bit of authority over journalists.
- Impact: Journalists may legally be required to give up info to police.
red lion broadcasting company v. fCC (1969)
- Question: Do the FCC regulations violate 1st Amendment rights?
- Decision: No. Fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment.
- Significance: Broadcasters licensed by gov. not protected by 1st Amendment.
- Impact: Amendments were made to the doctrine to add more regulations.
Tory v. Cochran (2004)
- Question: Did the judge's order violate the 1st Amendment?
- Decision: Yes. Cochran's death diminished the grounds of the order.
- Significance: Established that deaths make an impact on past orders.
- Impact: Judges now have to make changes to previous rulings due to death.
Turner broadcasting v. fcc (1993)
- Question: Are the must-carry rules a violation of 1st Amendment rights?
- Decision: No. Rules were content neutral, therefore not a violation.
- Significance: Helped the public television stations.
- Impact: This made it a bit easier to deal w/ the cable companies' monopoly.
Milkovich v. lorain journal co. (1990)
- Question: Can a newspaper be held liable for defamation?
- Decision: Yes. Separate opinion privilege doesn't exist against libel.
- Significance: The Court ruled in the least expected way.
- Impact: This decision seemed to confuse more people than help.
Hazelwood v. kuhlmeier (1987-1988)
- Question: Did the principal violate students' 1st Amendment rights?
- Decision: No. The school has the right to censor student-written articles.
- Significance: Established schools' rights to reasonable censorship.
- Impact: "Forum for public expression" v. "regular classroom activity".
The principal of Hazelwood East High School withheld two pages of the school newspaper, deemed inappropriate, after reviewing the articles they were printed on.
Due to the lack of a clear statement from the Supreme Court, many politicians have tried to clarify what the difference is between a student article written as a "forum of public expression" vs. a "regular classroom activity" and students' rights for both.
Due to the lack of a clear statement from the Supreme Court, many politicians have tried to clarify what the difference is between a student article written as a "forum of public expression" vs. a "regular classroom activity" and students' rights for both.
Abrams v. united states (1919)
- Question: Can Congress make a law punishing dissent in wartime?
- Decision: Yes. This is constitutional, but SPECIFICALLY regarding WARTIME.
- Significance: Upheld the Sedition Act of 1918 (ext. of 1917 Espionage Act).
- Impact: Amendments to "clear and present danger" and Act repealed in 1920.
Jacob Abrams and others created 2 leaflets denouncing the sending of US troops into Russia.
Espionage Act of 1917 - Prohibited interference supporting enemies and interfering with military ops.
Sedition Act of 1918 - Extension of the Espionage Act of 1917, covers broader range of offenses like speech or expressions of opinion putting the gov./war effort in a negative light/preventing the sale of war bonds.
Espionage Act of 1917 - Prohibited interference supporting enemies and interfering with military ops.
Sedition Act of 1918 - Extension of the Espionage Act of 1917, covers broader range of offenses like speech or expressions of opinion putting the gov./war effort in a negative light/preventing the sale of war bonds.
Timeline
- 1735 - The John Peter Zenger Case.
- 1787 - Federalist Papers' publication begins.
- 1791 - Ratification of the First Amendment.
- 1798 - The Alien and Sedition Acts are signed into law.
- 1864 - Lincoln orders 2 newspapers to stop publication.
Timeline (Cont.)
- 1907 - Patterson v. Colorado
- 1918 - WWI critics punished by Sedition Act of 1918 (Abrams v. US)
- 1931 - Near V. Minnesota
- 1936 - Grossjean v. American Press Co.
- 1952 - Beauharnais v. Illinois
Timeline (Cont.)
- 1964 - New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
- 1966 - Government records made available to the public
- 1969 - Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
- 1971 - Newspapers win "Pentagon Papers" Case
- 1972 - Branzburg v. Hayes
Timeline (Cont.)
- 1974 - Miami Herald v. Tornillo
- 1976 - Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart
- 1979 - Garnett Co. v. Depasquale
- 1979 - Herbert v. Lando
- 1980 - Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia
Timeline (cont.)
- 1982 - Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court
- 1983 -Media access limited in Grenada, Panama Invasions
- 1988 - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and Hustler Mag. v. Falwell
- 1990 - Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
- 1991 - Media coverage limited in Gulf War.
Timeline (Cont.)
- 2001 - US v. Vopper and Bartnicki v. Vopper
Discussion Questions
- Which case made the biggest impact and why do you think this is?
- Do you see any possible overlaps with other 1st Amendment rights?
- Opinions on the ruling of the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case?
- Thoughts on libel: black and white or shades of gray.
