Presentation on theme: "Freedom of the Press By Dylan Roush, Michael Richardson and Timothy Andrews."— Presentation transcript:
Freedom of the Press By Dylan Roush, Michael Richardson and Timothy Andrews
First Amendment The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no laws…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..” Before Near v. Minnesota, the states generally regulated the freedom of the press.
Near v. Minnesota Jay Near published scandal sheet in Minneapolis Said local officials were involved with gangsters Minnesota prevented Near from publishing this under a state law It stated “any person ‘engaged in the business’ of regularly publishing or circulating an ‘obscene, lewd, and lascivious’ or a ‘malicious, scandalous and defamatory’ newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance and could be stopped from further committing or maintaining the nuisance.” (Oyez) Supreme Court ruled that the government is not allowed to prohibit or censor any publication before it is published
Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily Officers of the Palo Alto, California police department obtained a search warrant in 1971 5 votes for Zurcher 3 votes against Reasoning for going with Zurcher, the court held that “third party” searches do not violate the Fourth amendment. “such searches, accompanied by warrants, were legitimate when it had been “satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises.”” “did not forbid warrants where the press was involved” (Oyez)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Robert E. Reynolds, principle of Hazelwood East High School, ordered two pages of the school paper to not be published for containing inappropriate articles. Supreme Court decided that Reynolds actions did not violate the students rights in the First Amendment
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo Miami Herald printed two editorials which criticizing Tornillo’s candidacy Tornillo wanted Miami Herald to publish his responses-Miami Herald would not Tornillo said this violated a Florida state law that stated any political candidate criticized by a newspaper is able to have a response to these published. Miami Herald argued this violated First Amendment Supreme Court ruled that Florida’s “right to reply” violated freedom of the press in First Amendment
New York Times v. Sullivan L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, said that the New York Times and four black ministers were the ones who authorized the printing of a full-page ad that said the arrest of MLK by the Montgomery police was part of a campaign to destroy MLK’s efforts Sullivan claimed that the allegations against the department defamed him personally Sullivan won a 500,000 dollar argument 9 votes for New York Times 0 votes against “The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.” (Oyez)
New York Times v. United States Famous “Pentagon Papers Case” Nixon Administration tried to prevent New York Times and Washington Post from printing articles about U. S. involvement in Vietnam. Nixon believed it was necessary to protect national security Supreme Court ruled against prior restraint of publication by the government
Miller v. California Miller was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material after conducting a mass mailing campaign on the sale of “adult” material. 5-4 obscene materials did not have first amendment protection. Proved this in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest... (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.“ (Oyez)
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell Hustler Magazine made fun of Falwell and said that he had a “drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse.” (Oyez) Falwell sued for “libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” (Oyez) Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hustler Magazine
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. Congress enacted Communications Decency Act in 1996, which section 505 of required cable operators with sexually- oriented channels to block those channels or to broadcast them between 10 pm to 6 am, hours when children won’t be watching. This to protect children from signal bleed, when audio and video from programs might be seen Playboy said it violated freedom of speech because government might further its interests in less restrictive ways Section 504 said cable operators had obligation to block channels at customer’s request, this was less restrictive Is section 505 of Communications Decency Act the least restrictive means? 5 votes for Playboy, 4 against Federal government failed to show section 505 as least restrictive means
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC FCC’s (Federal Communications Commission’s) Fairness Doctrine requires radio television broadcasters to present balanced and fair discussion of public issues. Doctrine composed of two parts: personal attacks concerning public issue debates, and political editorializing. FCC renews broadcasting licenses on compliance with its regulations Red Lion Broadcasting challenged fairness doctrine Does the fairness doctrine violate Freedom of Press? 7 votes for, 0 against Fairness doctrine enhanced rather than infringed on First Amendment Requirement that subject of attack be provided with broadcast summary as well as opportunity to respond insured open and balanced discussion Requirement that political editorializing be presented on both sides also contributed to balance
Chandler v. Florida Two Miami Beach police officers charged with robbing local restaurant Trial gained much media attention Recent Florida Supreme Court decision allowed electronic media to record the trial The officers objected to the coverage and we found guilty as charged Does allowing electronic media to cover a trial violate accused’s right to fair trial? 8 votes for Florida, 0 against State experimentation with evolving technology is consistent with Constitution Florida’s policy had been implemented with strict guidelines intended to protect right of fair trial For example, state required courts to protect certain witnesses from glare of publicity and to consider arguments from defendant who feels electronic coverage may bias jury.
Reno v. ACLU Communications Decency Act intentional transmission of obscene or indecent messages as well as sexual or excretory activities Janet Reno appealed to these rules except obscenity and its protection against child pornography Did Communications Decency Act violate first and fifth Amendments by being too vague in what types of internet communications they criminalized? 9 votes for ACLU, 0 against
United States v. American Library Association Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 2000, requiring public libraries to install internet filtering software on their computers in order to qualify for federal funding American Library Association and others challenged the law, saying it took away the first amendment of their users Does Congress have the authority to require libraries to censor internet content in order to receive federal funding? The Court held that, because public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights, CIPA does not induce libraries to violate the Constitution and is a valid exercise of Congress's spending power.
The Impact of Freedom of Press In most cases the court favors the publisher Exception to this is when the group is not an independent body or when the material is considered to be obscene or absurd
Class Discussion Do you think it is fair for those involved in the court case to have the information from their case be published for all to see? Do You believe that it is necessary for Supreme Court case information to be published? Should it be up to those involved in the case to decide whether or not to allow the information from the case to be published?
Bibliography NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 September 2011..http://beta.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1929/1929_91 ZURCHER v. THE STANFORD DAILY. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 September 2011.. MILLER v. CALIFORNIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 September 2011.. NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 September 2011.. NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 September 2011..http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_1873 HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 September 2011..http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987_86_836 HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 September 2011..http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278 MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. v. TORNILLO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 September 2011..http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_797 v.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 September 2011.. CHANDLER v. FLORIDA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 September 2011.. UNITED STATES v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 September 2011.. RENO v. ACLU. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 September 2011.. Edwards, George C., Martin P. Wattenberg, and Robert L.. Lineberry. Government in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. Print.