In his book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, Anthony Lewis traces the back-and-forth nature of First Amendment freedoms. "Ours is the most outspoken society on earth," he writes on the first page of the Introduction. Yet Lewis also notes that U.S. history is littered with restrictions on free speech, actions that have not lived up to the high ideals and liberties of the First Amendment.
For this blog assignment, read Lewis' Introduction as well as Chapters 1-5. From these chapters, identify one significant example of a failure of the First Amendment to protect the free expression rights of the citizens. Briefly explain the facts and First Amendment issues of your case and answer these questions: (1) Why did this breech of the First Amendment occur at the time it occurred? and (2) What is the significance of this case for us today?
Write about 250 words (about 14 sentences) for this post. Cite specifics from the reading to support your examples and strengthen your arguments. See you Monday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Michael Thomas
In the beginning of Chapter 2, it is said that, on the 14th of July in 1798, John Adams signed a bill into law making seditious libel a federal crime (Lewis 11). The law defined seditious libel as “any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress… or the President… with intent to defame… or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States” (Lewis 11). This was proposed and passed in a total of ten days out of the fear of Terrorism during the French revolution. While Terrorism is something that members of any society of any time fear, this 18th century “patriot act” was not so much used to punish people dissenting against their nation, but more to be used as a weapon in the development of the growing political party system we know today. In the context that it was written, it was meant for the suppression of the opposing Adams in the upcoming election, but as history books serve us, we can see that it did not ensure election for Adams. This was a clearly political action to pass this into law since it expired the day before the presidential inauguration and later became known as the force behind the development of the Democratic - Republican Party system.
Zak Patterson
One example of a failure of the First Amendment to protect the free expression rights of the citizens is the Public Nuisance Law of 1925. The Minnesota legislature shut down newspapers that they thought were purposefully being malicious and creating scandal because they thought certain papers were taking free expression too far. "The statute allowed a newspaper to defend itself by showing that it had published the truth--but only if it had done so 'with good motives and for justifiable ends.' The problem this law created was it eliminated the defense of the truth, and gave the judges the power to determine the "character of publishers" (43). The event occurred at the time that it did because the powers that be only saw that the newspaper was publishing defamatory material, they did not consider that for a newspaper was going to people, it was virtually guaranteed to be defamatory. If newspapers were to get it wrong, they could be later sued for libel, but no prior restraint could be held against them. The sole dispersion of powers to judges was a problem that was made clear in the Near vs. Minnesota case. Near, an anti-Semite publisher of The Saturday Press. The paper was shut down but the decision was found to be in violation of the First Amendment. Anthony Lewis addresses the significance of the Near vs. Minnesota case: "Because of that decision, it is very difficult to persuade a judge to issue a prior restraint on the press" (46).
Maggie Tracy
In chapter 3 of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, Lewis talks about how originally, the First Amendment only protected federal action and not state action. He states that when this issue reached the Supreme Court they wanted to rule “…to allow repression of any speech that had a ‘bad tendency’” (24) and this ruling “offered no protection to speakers and writers” (24). This issue and ruling came to light in a case called Patterson v. Colorado which Lewis states “echoed English seditious libel law” and “It gave no meaningful protection to speech or press, because just about anything might be ‘deemed contrary to the public welfare’” (24-25). The reason this breech of the Amendment happened was because there was no freedom of expression protection when it came to state matters and therefore the judges were able to make whatever decisions they saw fit for the alleged crime. It was argued during this case (and assuming in others as well) that this was unfair and eventually rights protecting freedom of expression in the states was added in 1925. This is applicable to our current daily lives because had the same protection not been extended to include state action as well, speakers and writers may still be facing decisions made that seemed like English libel laws. We would not be able to say or write things about state government officials, judges, and other people in positions of power. It is very important that this protection was given to the state actions as well as federal actions for the protection of all speakers and writers.
Kristina Merkle
Towards the middle of chapter 4 on page 99, it talks about the scandal between President Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky. There was this huge scandal about how they were "hooking up". It mentions in the book that the sources they received were anonymous and yet they still published it in the paper. The first amendment is defined as having the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. To me though, it seemed that President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's freedom of speech and freedom to the press was taken away. The reason I say this is because it seemed that everybody was just trying to get the dirt about what happened between the two of them. It seemed that nobody was really interested in their side of the story whether it would have proved the accusations were true or not. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press should be available to everybody, but in this situation; I believe that this was taken away from them. The same goes for the situation with Tiger Woods and all the women he was sleeping with. No one tried to get his side of the story, only the story of the women that he "allegedly" slept with. Regardless of who is in the wrong, everyone should be entitled to getting their own side of the story out there.
Andrus Rodriguez
Lewis mentions in the introduction of his book that the interpretation of the First Amendment is what the judge says that it intends to mean. Translation can take off in different directions with the use of words. During World War I, people were punished for critically voicing their opinions and a big failure of the First Amendment to protect the free expression rights of the citizens took place in 1917. In the case “Schenck v. United States, the defendants had given leaflets denouncing conscription as slavery to men called up in the draft” (26). The main defect was that the government translated the First Amendment’s intent was only to be applied on a federal level, taking the “Congress shall make no law….” as proof that it did not include coverage over state level (23). “In 1833 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, made clear that the entire Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, covered only federal action” (23). Lewis further mentioned that a judge said that the main purpose at the time was to lift restraints on publications but it still muzzled any meaningful protection for free expression that had, in their opinion, “bad tendency” (24). If we today would have no difference in opinions then we all are not able to learn what is outside of our boundaries. It would not matter if a “judge told juries to convict if they found a defendant’s words “disloyal”” (25). Because we would do as we were told and continue to sit in our cave.
Post a Comment