3.4 First Amendment: Freedom of the Press, the Right to Petition, and the Right to Assemble

Announcements:
In addition to reading today's post, please make sure you:

1. Read the Street Law Summary on New York Times vs. U.S. (required case).
2. Fill in the information about this case on the Supreme Court case matrix (use the same copy you have been using)
3. Complete the Khan Academy modules on freedom of the press.
4. Study for the 1st Amendment Civil Liberties quiz on Monday.

READING: 85-126 in Edwards

UNIT THREE Identification Terms 

Today's Essential Question: How does the government effectively interpret and balance individual liberties guaranteed in the First Amendment with the need to maintain social order?

Learning Standards:

LOR-2.C: Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First and Second Amendments reflects a commitment to individual liberty.

LOR-2.C.4: In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court bolstered the freedom of the press, establishing a “heavy presumption against prior restraint” even in cases involving national security.

Freedom of the Press

The last three freedoms of the 1st Amendment (press, petition, assemble) are essential in a working democracy. A free press is necessary to inform citizens of the actions of government officials. It serves as a watchdog and holds government accountable for its abuses. The right to petition and assemble, along with freedom of speech, allow citizens to organize and speak out against government policy and advocate for change. Like other rights, these are not absolute and the courts have had to settle various disputes about the extent of the freedom of the press and the right to petition and assemble.

Prior Restraint

Can the government prohibit a story before it is even published or broadcast (prior restraint)? There are several court cases that address this issue.

Near v. Minnesota (1931): Could local government officials stop a newspaper from publishing articles that they found to be "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" ahead of time? Could government officials use prior restraint to stop the publication of articles that they found to be offensive?

The Court ruled that prior restraint was a violation of the 1st Amendment and in this case applied it to the states via the 14th Amendment's due process clause (selective incorporation!)

What if the news story contained classified government information that had been illegally leaked to the newspapers? In New York Times v. United States (1971) the Court was faced with that very question. Watch the video below to find the answer. This is a College Board required case!

How does prior restraint work when it comes to student newspapers? The Supreme Court tackled that question in the 1988 case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. Could school administrators stop the publication of an article (one on divorce, another on teen pregnancy) in the school newspaper? Would that violate the Court's previous rulings on prior restraint? Watch this video to find out.

To summarize, generally speaking the Court has ruled against the government practice of prior restraint.

The Right to Petition & the Right to Assemble

What limits can be placed on the right to petition or peaceably assemble? The courts have said that restrictions can be based on:

• Time
• Place
• Manner

For example, protests directly outside a school or courtroom that are disruptive can be prohibited. It is legal for states and local governments to require a special permit (provided it is applied equally for all groups) to demonstrate. Actions that directly incite violence may also be halted if law enforcement feels that they can no longer maintain order.

Perhaps nowhere are the limits of the 1st Amendment tested more than the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and their practice of protesting at military funerals and other high profile events (including Liberty High School's graduation last year). Using the shield of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble, WBC has successfully deflected legal challenges and continues to spew their hate-filled message. To find out more about the Westboro Baptist Church, headquartered just down the road in Topeka, watch these two videos.

3.3a First Amendment: Freedom of Speech

Announcements:

In addition to reading today's post, please make sure you:

1. Read the Street Law summary of Schenck v. US, one of the required SCOTUS cases
2. Fill out the SCOTUS Required Cases Matrix for Schenck v. US (Use the same copy that you have been using)
3. Watch the EdPuzzle video on Freedom of Speech and answer the questions.
4. Outline of everything is on our weekly planner.

READING: 85-126 in Edwards

UNIT THREE Identification Terms 

Today's Question: How does the government effectively interpret and balance individual liberties guaranteed in the First Amendment with the need to maintain social order?

Learning Standards:

LOR-2.C: Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First and Second Amendments reflects a commitment to individual liberty.

LOR-2.C.2: The Supreme Court has held that symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment, demonstrated by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), in which the court ruled that public school students could wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War.

LOR-2.C.3: Efforts to balance social order and individual freedom are reflected in interpretations of the First Amendment that limit speech, including:

• Time, place, and manner regulations 
• Defamatory, offensive, and obscene statements and gestures 
• That which creates a “clear and present danger” based on the ruling in Schenck v. United States (1919)

LOR-3.B.1: The Supreme Court has on occasion ruled in favor of states’ power to restrict individual liberty; for example, when speech can be shown to increase the danger to public safety.

Freedom of Speech

In addition to protecting religious freedoms, the First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech. Again, this is not absolute as the government may place limits on certain types of speech. Today we will look at the Court's history of interpreting freedom of speech in the US.

The first major case dealing with freedom of speech is Schenck v. US. This is a College Board required SCOTUS case. Make sure you fill out your matrix on this case.

• Schenck was convicted of the Espionage Act for passing out fliers advocating citizens to refuse participation in the military draft during World War I.
• He argued that the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech guarantee protected him from being punished.
• The Court upheld his conviction, declaring that speech that poses "a clear and present danger" may be limited
• Famous quote--it doesn't protect a man falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater

The Court has dealt with a number of other free speech cases.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court ruled that "fighting words" were not protected under the 1st Amendment.

Is inflammatory speech, speech that potentially threatens others, protected? The Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio created a broad interpretation of the freedom of speech and protected the KKK's speech since it did not create an imminent unlawful action.

Symbolic Speech
Speech does not have to be verbal to convey a message. Several court cases have dealt with symbolic speech.

U.S. v. O'Brien (1968)--can the government punish you for burning your draft card?

Texas v. Johnson (1989)--is burning an American flag a protected form of symbolic speech under the 1st Amendment?

Virginia v. Black (2003)--is Virginia's law prohibiting the burning of crosses with the intent to intimidate someone a violation of the 1st Amendment?
Review Videos: