Constitutional-Literacy-11

=**Section 11: Freedom of Speech and Press**=

The wording of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible shows that everything had to be translated and printed by the King's authority. Nothing could be printed without the King's approval It showed the lack of freedom of the press in England even in the printing of the Bible. This the core idea behind the part of the first amendment that gives us the freedoms of speech and the press.

Prior restraint of the press means the government would have to give its approval before there would be any publications. There was a very heavy belief in NO prior restraint of the press by the Founding Fathers and this was also made part of the 1st amendment. Can anyone say or print anything at all that they want? Absolutely not. James Wilson (a Founder) gave a clear explanation of free press at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention. He said "There should be no antecedent restraint up it (free press), but that every author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government, or the safety, character, and property of the individual." This means the basic rule is that a person is free to say or publish anything he wants without any need for advance approval by the government, but if he abuses these rights, he could be brought to account either criminally or under civil law after the fact.


 * Comprehension Question: What is prior restraint?**

The clearest example of violating free speech or press is slander (speech) or libel (press) a.k.a. defamation of character, or a lie that hurts a person's reputation. The key is the person who passes along the gossip is as responsible as the one who made up the lie. This counts even in email even if you merely hit the forward button. Gossip that is a lie that hurts a person's reputation is not protected. The Supreme Court allowed different rules for public officials and public figures. In New York Times v. Sullivan 1963 when an ad was placed in the paper (newspapers are as responsible for ads as they are their own articles). The Supreme Court ruled that newspapers could report ads or stories that are false against public figures unless there was malice or the newspaper knew before hand that it was false. If not for this case, then newspapers would not print things unless absolutely sure of their facts without any doubts. Based on this ruling, in order for a public official to sue a newspaper for defamation of character, the public official would have to show that the article was printed with "actual malice," which means that if the paper published a deliberate falsehood or if the paper published something with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.


 * Comprehension Question: If you forward a piece of gossip to one of your friends on Facebook or Twitter without making any comment yourself and that gossip turns out to be false and damaging, can the person harmed sue you for defamation?**


 * Comprehension Question: What are the First Amendment rules for defamation cases brought by public officials?**

In Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts in 1967 the Saturday Evening Post published that the Georgia coach and Alabama coach (football) had conspired to fix a game. The source the paper used was considered very reliable. The story turned out to be false. Butts (the Georgia coach) sued and won. The Supreme Court did set up and used a different standard for public officials and public figures. The Supreme Court said it's not fair to newspapers to have absolute accuracy since public figures have the power to respond back quickly. The standard that is being held is if the paper's investigation was a "highly reasonable conduct consulting constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers." In this situation, the newspaper can be sued.

Obscenity is not protected either. The Supreme Court has never wavered on this. The definition of obscenity in 1973 came in Miller v. California. The Supreme Court wrote this opinion as a statute and was not based on original intent - original intent would have been much more strict on what obscenity is. So, why aren't we seeing prosecutors going after Internet obscenity? The truthful answer is gutless prosecutors and gutless attorney generals. Presidents, governors, and mayors are needed to enforce the laws. Our culture has grown much more secular and reasons for obscenity being considered morally wrong stems from Judeo-Christian philosophy.


 * Comprehension Question: We know that obscenity is not protected, but it's gotten away with. What is needed to battle obscenity, including pornography on the Internet?**

Speech or press that encourages the violation of laws is also not protected. In the Brandenburg case, the KKK's speech was allowed though, but violent speech is punishable. If speech is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" it's illegal.


 * Comprehension Question: Does the freedom of speech allow a speaker to say anything whatsoever he/she wants about anyone?**

In Philadelphia during a homosexual rights rally, a small group of Christians held their own rally about homosexual behavior being sinful. The homosexual rights group encircled the Christian group to block their message. The police came and went after the Christian group and arrested them even though they weren't breaking any laws. Authorities tacked on a hate speech charge for saying that homosexuality was wrong. In the end, the judge ruled in favor of the Christian group and there were no penalties against this group, but it shows how traditional values have become more the values under attack rather than immoral behaviors. Most homosexual rights groups look to silence opposing speech and critics. This leads us to a principle that the government can never censor speech based on content, but groups such as the homosexual groups actively work to do just that.

The government can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. They can prohibit rallies at night in a residential neighborhood, for example. The government can allow picketing on a sidewalk, but the picketing cannot block the sidewalk. What is not permissible is when the government allows some speakers with one message but prohibits other speakers just because of their message. In Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley the court ruled that speech may not be regulated simply because of its content.


 * Comprehension Question: Why was the Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley decision important for free speech especially in today's society in which Secular-Progressives aim to remove certain types of speech that go against their movement?**

Religious speech is entitled to the same speech protection as others. In Widmar v. Vincent 1981 the ruling was that the Establishment Clause did not require universities to limit access to facilities by religious organizations. In the Good News Club v. Milford Central School District 2001 the same ruling was made for high schools when Milford excluded the club from meeting after school hours.

In campaigning, candidates are limited on campaign donations. Money helps a candidate get their message out there. Restricting that money flow will restrict speech and helps incumbents since they have the ability to use the mail service for free. The purpose of campaign laws is to prevent corruption, which is a good goal. However, states found that by having donations all written down and made public helps stop corruption. The Supreme Court should be ruling on the principle that the least restrictive law that gets the same goal should be used.


 * Discussion Question: Why should we allow free speech? Shouldn't we only allow free speech for the truth and good ideas, not lies and dangerous ideas?**

**Overall: Summarize the main idea of this section and why it's important.**

Back to the Constitutional Literacy main page