Freedom+of+Press

= By Michelle Voong and Dan Byrd (period 4) =

=What is Freedom of Press?= Freedom of Press is the right that is guaranteed in the First Amendment, to publish and to distribute information in books, magazines, newspapers, etc. without restrictions and censorship from federal government.

= NEAR v. MINNESOTA (1931) = **A.P. Gov. Unit(s):** Constitution, Court, Civil Rights and Liberties **Vocabulary:** "gag law", First Amendment, Nuisance, Statute **Constitutional Question:** Does the gag law violate the first amendment? **Decision:** Ruled unconstitutional. The law infringed on the first amendment because just because a publication is a nuisance does not make it illegal. The government has no right to decide what is a nuisance and what is not. The press has a right to publish what it wishes, even if the government sees it as a nuisance. **Significance:** New standard that the government could not censor or prohibit publication before the publication is released. The government does not have a right to decide what is a nuisance and what is not. **Policy Impact:** This case allows the press to publish what it wants even if the government sees it as an annoyance. It does not limit the press.
 * Mnemonic Device: ** Minnesota NEARLY took away his first amendment right.
 * Background: ** Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to prevent Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law that allowed such action against periodicals. The law provided that 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.

**A.P. Gov. Unit(s):** Constitution, Court, Civil Rights and Liberties **Vocabulary:** Obscenity statute **Constitutional Question:** Did the obscenity restrictions violate the First Amendment? **Decision:** Ruled in favor of the United States. They believed the restrictions on the mail-order book's content was not a violation of the constitution. The court ruled that this realm of speech or press was not protected by the Constitution. **Significance:** The court set the standard that not every utterance of any type of speech or press was protected by the Constitution.
 * ROTH v. UNITED STATES (1957) **
 * Mnemonic Device: ** Roth-> Broth-> which is hot-> like women-> which is obscene-> like the book.
 * Background: ** Roth operated a book-selling business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute. Roth's case was combined with Alberts v. California, in which a California obscenity law was challenged by Alberts after his similar conviction for selling lewd and obscene books in addition to composing and publishing obscene advertisements for his products.
 * P ** **olicy Impact:** This case allows the Supreme Court to decide what types of speech or press will be protected by the Constitution. This case limits what is and is not protected by the Constitution. In this case specifically, the court ruled that obscenity restrictions are not in violation of the First Amendment.

**A.P. Gov Unit(s):** Civil Liberties and Civil Rights **Vocabulary:** First Amendment, Speech, Press, and Assembly **Constitutional Question:** Do the Federal Communications Commission’s fairness doctrine, concerning personal attacks made in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing, violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantees? **Decision:** In a 7-0 vote, the Court held that the FCC’s fairness doctrine is consistent with the First Amendment. The radio and television broadcast can be closely regulated compared to the press because of the number of airwaves available. Also the Court stated that there is nothing in the First Amendment of the Constitution that prevents the government from requiring their licensee to share airwaves with others. **Significance:** This case restricts what radio and television stations can broadcast, since the Court said the FCC’s fairness doctrine does not violate the First Amendment. The Court continues to maintain the critical differences between print and broadcast journalism. **Policy Impact:** This case allows the federal government to regulate and censor what radio and television stations can broadcast.
 * RED LION BROADCASTING COMPANY v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (1968) **
 * Mnemonic Device: ** it’s not FAIR that the red lion eats all the animal just like the FAIRness doctrine
 * Background: ** The Red Lion Broadcasting Company thought that their First Amendment Rights were violated by the Federal Communications Commission The Red Lion Broadcasting Company argued that the Federal Communications Commission fairness doctrine which requires radio a television broadcasters to present a balanced and fair discussion or public issues on airwaves.

**A.P. Gov Unit(s):** Civil Liberties and Civil Rights **Vocabulary:** First Amendment **Mnemonic Device:** Raisin BRAN is a good cereal similar to how this case a good example of how reporters aren't always protected by the first amendment. **Decision:** No. The Court held that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries is important state interest and does not violate the First Amendment. Justice White argued that there was no Constitutional violation because the case did involve government intervention to impose prior restraint and did not command Branzburg to publish or release the sources. Even though reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not mean that they have the right to withhold that information during a government investigation. The common citizen is often forced to disclose information that is received in confidence when summoned to testify in court. **Significance:** This case epitomizes the frustration between the press trying to secure the First Amendment. **Policy Impact:** This case does not allow journalists and reporters to withhold confidential information to grand juries, it does not violate the First Amendment. This case made it so in the future laws can be made to require reporters and journalists to disclose information to grand juries when they are important to the states’ interests.
 * BRANZBURG v. HAYES (1971) **
 * Background: ** Branzburg wrote a story that appeared in the Louisville newspaper, after he observed and interviewed people who synthesized and used drugs. Branzburg was called to testify before state grand juries that were investigating two drug crimes. Branzburg refused to testify and refused to potentially disclose the identities of his confidential sources.
 * Constitutional Question: ** Are news reporters required to go before state or federal grand juries an abridgment of the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed in the First Amendment?

**A.P. Gov. Unit(s):** Constitution, Court, Civil Rights and Liberties **Vocabulary:** Classified Information, and First Amendment. **Background:** In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co. **Constitutional Question:** Did Nixon administration violate the first amendment by prevent publication of "classified information"? **Decision:** Ruled unconstitutional. The newspaper companies obtained the documentation legally and had a right to publish the information. The court decided that the Nixon administration did not have a right to prevent them from doing so. **Significance:** The publication of the information did not pose an immediate or direct threat to the security of the United States, therefore the argument brought up by the Nixon administration was invalid. Press companies have a right to publish information about national security as long as it does not endanger it. **Policy Impact:** This case does not restrict what press companies can publish, thus giving them more freedom in what kind of information or types of articles they want to publish.
 * NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES (1971) **

Freedom of the press is a fundamental right stated in the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It guarantees the right of all people involved in the publication of news or “press” to be able to do so freely without the fear of being censored by the government. The Supreme Court has been fairly inconsistent in its rulings on this right over the past eighty years. One of the first significant rulings the court made was in Near v. Minnesota. The court made a ruling that the government does not have right to decide what is a “nuisance” and what is not. No laws could be passed that restricted “nuisance” publications because it violates the first amendment. However, years later, the court ruled differently in a similar case. This case was Roth v. United States where the court ruled that not every type of speech or press ever said or printed is protected under the Constitution. Therefore, some laws could be created to restrict what is published, as long as the publication is not in the realm of press protected by the Constitution. The Court ruled in 1968 that freedom of the press does not apply in the same way to radio press as it does printed press due to the fact that there are only so many radio waves, but there can be a non-restricted number of printing companies. The Supreme court continues to flip-flop over the years ruling that principals could censor school newspaper material, but the government can not censor a private newspaper. The inconsistencies in the Courts ruling makes it difficult to predict how the Court will rule in the next case. The evolution of this Constitutional freedom has been extremely inconstant and it is often unclear what the first amendment protects and what it does not.
 * Evolution of Freedom of Press: **

media type="youtube" key="puxdQRxlzWQ" height="346" width="462" align="center"



__** Vocabulary **__ "Gag Law"- is a law that was made intended to limit freedom of press, by restricting access to information First Amendment- an amendment in the US Constitution, that guarantees the right of free expression. These rights include: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of press. Nuisance- a broad legal concept that includes a person, thing, or circumstance that is bothersome or causing inconvenience to a person's land Statute- is the law enacted by a legislative body Classified Information- is official information that requires protection from those who do not have authorized permission to view or know

1) What was the Court's decision in New York Times v. United States (1971)?
 * __ Related Questions __**

2) How has Freedom of Press evolved over time?

3) What is Freedom of Press?

__** Related Articles **__ [] []

__** Works Cited **__ [|h][|ttp://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1929/1929_91/] [|http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/freedom-of-expression/red-lion-broadcasting-co-v-fcc/2/__] [|http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_2_2__] [|http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_85__] [] [] [] [] [] http://apgovernmentchs.wikispaces.com/Freedom+of+Press [] [] []