Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
First Amendment<br />COMM 502, Jan. 26 - 31, 2011<br />
1791<br />Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or...
First amendment<br /><ul><li>Establishes a set of rights
Rights: limits on governmental action</li></li></ul><li>What does the First Amendment mean?<br />
 (1) Original intentThe meaning intended by the framers<br />
(2) “The First Amendment means today what the Supreme Court says it means.”<br />
3 main approaches to first amendment<br />ABSOLUTIST APPROACH<br />Absolutist theory<br />2. BALANCING APPROACH<br />Ad ho...
3 main approaches to first amendment (CONT)<br />3. VALUE-BASED APPROACH<br />Meiklejohnian theory<br />Marketplace of ide...
(1)ABSOLUTIST APPROACH<br />
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...”<br />
ABSOLUTIST THEORY<br />The dispositive question is whether the action prohibited is a form of “speech”<br />Justice Hugo L...
What is speech?<br /><ul><li>Content
Expressive conduct
the person engaging in conduct intends to convey a message
The audience is likely to understand the message</li></li></ul><li>What problems do you see with absolutist approach?<br />
(2)BALANCING APPROACH<br />
Competing interestsIndividuals: free speechGovernment: restrictions<br />
Balancing approach<br />Courts should weigh the individual’s interest in free speech against the government’s interest in ...
Ad hoc balancing<br />On a case-by-case basis, the courts should identify whose interest prevails <br />
Preferred position balancing<br />Free speech wins unless the government shows a strong legitimate interest in restricting...
Preferred position balancing<br />The government bears the burden of making the case for censorship<br />
(3) VALUE-BASED APPROACH<br />
Value-based approach<br />Identify the values served by the First Amendment and rule so that to advance those values<br />
What values does the First Amendment serve?<br />
Values served by protecting free speech<br /><ul><li>Self-government: Facilitates participation of citizens in political d...
Discovery of truth: When truth and falsehood are allowed to compete, truth wins out
Self-fulfillment: Free speech allows individuals to express themselves/identity</li></li></ul><li>meiklejohnian THEORY<br ...
Some categories of speech more valuable than others</li></ul>Alexander Meiklejohn<br />
Marketplace of ideas THEORY<br /><ul><li>Free competition of ideas would lead to the discovery of truth</li></ul>John Stua...
Marketplace of ideas THEORY<br /><ul><li>J. Holmes (1919): “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itse...
Marketplace of ideas<br />Rationale for invalidating overbroad laws<br />
Access THEORY<br /><ul><li>Rich media, poor democracy, part 1
Government has an obligation to force access
Unequal access to the marketplace of ideas
Media do not allow access voluntary</li></li></ul><li>Prime time access rule (PTAR)1970 – 1996 Restricted the amount of ne...
Self-fulfillment theory<br /><ul><li>Speech is important to individuals regardless of its impact on politics</li></ul>Prof...
Does the First Amendment apply only to the federal government?<br />When is it constitutional for the government to censor...
(1)Does the First Amendment apply only to the federal government?<br />
Gitlow v. New York (1925)<br /><ul><li>Socialist Benjamin Gitlow indicted in N.Y. for the crime of criminal anarchy for di...
Conviction upheld
Court: states need to comply with First Amendment</li></ul>33<br />Benjamin Gitlow<br />
The Incorporation Doctrine: The Bill of Rights placed limitations on the actions of states and governments via the 14th Am...
(2)LIMITATIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT<br />
Two types of limitations<br />Censorship<br /><ul><li>Prior restraint – speech is censored based on content, before public...
Time, place & manner – content is not censored, only the manner of delivery</li></li></ul><li>PRIOR RESTRAINT<br />
TYPES OF PRIOR RESTRAINT<br /><ul><li>Government needs to approve content before publication
Government bans particular types of content (e.g., sedition)
Individuals need permission from local authorities before assembly
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

First amendment prior restraint (jan. 26, 31, 2011)

1,875 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

First amendment prior restraint (jan. 26, 31, 2011)

  1. 1. First Amendment<br />COMM 502, Jan. 26 - 31, 2011<br />
  2. 2. 1791<br />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.<br />
  3. 3. First amendment<br /><ul><li>Establishes a set of rights
  4. 4. Rights: limits on governmental action</li></li></ul><li>What does the First Amendment mean?<br />
  5. 5. (1) Original intentThe meaning intended by the framers<br />
  6. 6. (2) “The First Amendment means today what the Supreme Court says it means.”<br />
  7. 7. 3 main approaches to first amendment<br />ABSOLUTIST APPROACH<br />Absolutist theory<br />2. BALANCING APPROACH<br />Ad hoc balancing theory<br />Preferred position balancing theory<br />
  8. 8. 3 main approaches to first amendment (CONT)<br />3. VALUE-BASED APPROACH<br />Meiklejohnian theory<br />Marketplace of ideas theory<br />Access theory<br />Self-realization theory<br />
  9. 9. (1)ABSOLUTIST APPROACH<br />
  10. 10. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...”<br />
  11. 11. ABSOLUTIST THEORY<br />The dispositive question is whether the action prohibited is a form of “speech”<br />Justice Hugo L. Black<br />
  12. 12. What is speech?<br /><ul><li>Content
  13. 13. Expressive conduct
  14. 14. the person engaging in conduct intends to convey a message
  15. 15. The audience is likely to understand the message</li></li></ul><li>What problems do you see with absolutist approach?<br />
  16. 16. (2)BALANCING APPROACH<br />
  17. 17. Competing interestsIndividuals: free speechGovernment: restrictions<br />
  18. 18. Balancing approach<br />Courts should weigh the individual’s interest in free speech against the government’s interest in restricting speech <br />
  19. 19. Ad hoc balancing<br />On a case-by-case basis, the courts should identify whose interest prevails <br />
  20. 20. Preferred position balancing<br />Free speech wins unless the government shows a strong legitimate interest in restricting speech<br />
  21. 21. Preferred position balancing<br />The government bears the burden of making the case for censorship<br />
  22. 22. (3) VALUE-BASED APPROACH<br />
  23. 23. Value-based approach<br />Identify the values served by the First Amendment and rule so that to advance those values<br />
  24. 24. What values does the First Amendment serve?<br />
  25. 25. Values served by protecting free speech<br /><ul><li>Self-government: Facilitates participation of citizens in political decision-making
  26. 26. Discovery of truth: When truth and falsehood are allowed to compete, truth wins out
  27. 27. Self-fulfillment: Free speech allows individuals to express themselves/identity</li></li></ul><li>meiklejohnian THEORY<br /><ul><li>The purpose of free speech should be successful self-government
  28. 28. Some categories of speech more valuable than others</li></ul>Alexander Meiklejohn<br />
  29. 29. Marketplace of ideas THEORY<br /><ul><li>Free competition of ideas would lead to the discovery of truth</li></ul>John Stuart Mill<br />
  30. 30. Marketplace of ideas THEORY<br /><ul><li>J. Holmes (1919): “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market”</li></ul>Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes<br />
  31. 31. Marketplace of ideas<br />Rationale for invalidating overbroad laws<br />
  32. 32. Access THEORY<br /><ul><li>Rich media, poor democracy, part 1
  33. 33. Government has an obligation to force access
  34. 34. Unequal access to the marketplace of ideas
  35. 35. Media do not allow access voluntary</li></li></ul><li>Prime time access rule (PTAR)1970 – 1996 Restricted the amount of network programming that local TV stations affiliated with/owned by a network may air during “prime time”<br />
  36. 36. Self-fulfillment theory<br /><ul><li>Speech is important to individuals regardless of its impact on politics</li></ul>Professor C. Edwin Baker<br />
  37. 37. Does the First Amendment apply only to the federal government?<br />When is it constitutional for the government to censor speech?<br />
  38. 38. (1)Does the First Amendment apply only to the federal government?<br />
  39. 39. Gitlow v. New York (1925)<br /><ul><li>Socialist Benjamin Gitlow indicted in N.Y. for the crime of criminal anarchy for distributing the Left Wing Manifesto
  40. 40. Conviction upheld
  41. 41. Court: states need to comply with First Amendment</li></ul>33<br />Benjamin Gitlow<br />
  42. 42. The Incorporation Doctrine: The Bill of Rights placed limitations on the actions of states and governments via the 14th Amendment (Due Process)<br />
  43. 43. (2)LIMITATIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT<br />
  44. 44. Two types of limitations<br />Censorship<br /><ul><li>Prior restraint – speech is censored based on content, before publication
  45. 45. Time, place & manner – content is not censored, only the manner of delivery</li></li></ul><li>PRIOR RESTRAINT<br />
  46. 46. TYPES OF PRIOR RESTRAINT<br /><ul><li>Government needs to approve content before publication
  47. 47. Government bans particular types of content (e.g., sedition)
  48. 48. Individuals need permission from local authorities before assembly
  49. 49. Courts forbid the publication of certain kinds of material prior to trial</li></li></ul><li>LANDMARK CASES ON PRIOR RESTRAINT<br />
  50. 50. SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES (1919)<br /><ul><li>Socialist Charles Schenck distributed anti-draft flyers alleging that the draft was
  51. 51. Conviction upheld
  52. 52. Court: “clear and present danger”</li></ul>40<br />
  53. 53. Near v. minnesota(1931)<br /><ul><li>Minnesota: statute that criminalized “scandalous publication”
  54. 54. Saturday Press -articles highly critical of gangsterism
  55. 55. The Court declared prior restraint unconstitutional, but only in that case</li></ul>41<br />
  56. 56. NEW YEAR TIMES V. U.S. (1971)<br /><ul><li>1971: The Pentagon Papers</li></ul>The Court decided that the government carries a “heavy burden” when justifying prior restraint<br />Daniel Ellsberg<br />
  57. 57. Treatment of prior restraint<br />Prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional, with the burden on the government to prove that prior restraint is justified<br />The state’s interest should be “compelling”<br />
  58. 58. Treatment of prior restraint (cont)<br />3. The scope of prior restraint must be very narrow<br /><ul><li>“Clear and present danger” test replaced with “imminent lawless action” in 1969</li></ul>4. Some categories of speech can be restrained, but only after court determination that such categories are not protected<br />
  59. 59. OTHER FORMS OF CENSORSHIP DURING THE WAR<br />
  60. 60. “There was censorship in every war in which the United States was involved, beginning with the Civil War”<br />
  61. 61. Modes of censorship during wartime<br /><ul><li>Denial of access to location
  62. 62. Denial of access to documents and photographs
  63. 63. Punishment for publishing national security information
  64. 64. Self-censorship by the news media</li></li></ul><li>Bottom line<br /><ul><li>In both Schenck and Near, the Court indicated that some forms of prior restraint are permissible during wartime
  65. 65. The government carries the burden of justification for content-based censorship
  66. 66. Other modes of censorship of the press</li>

×