Skip to main content

Chapter 2

Topic Overview

According to the Supreme Court the first amendment is not a hall pass to say whatever you want. This idea is fair under certain circumstances at least in the obvious protection of the greater good so they say, however this does cause problems with the firm trampling of rights. What has been woven in by the founders is the idea that there should be no punishment for any and all truthful criticisms of the government and all its branches. Since there is not a fixed definition to how rule over these issues the courts have avoided broad rulings in turn propagating the current state of media. Media and speech which is broadcasted for the general public is having a big impact on how to protect its speakers and the different types of speech as well. Government actions fall within the power being delegated while the court uses minimum scrutiny or rational review to view what is and is not constitutional about the issue. If laws continuously have affects that are in some way hampering rights the courts can move to heightened forms of review. This is why we see little rulings that place regulations on content.

Defining Key Terms

Ad Hoc Balancing- making decisions according to the specific facts of the case under review rather than more general principles
Categorical Balancing- practice of deciding cases by weighing different broad categories, such as political speech, against other categories of interests, such as privacy, to create general rules that may be applied in later cases with similar facts
Seditious Libel- communication meant to incite people to change the government; criticism of the government
Strict Scrutiny- court test for determining the constitutionality of laws aimed at speech content, under which the government must show it is using the least restrictive means available to directly advance its compelling interest
Intermediate Scrutiny- standard applied by the courts to review laws that implicate core constitutional values; also called heightened review
O’Brien Test- three-part test used to determine whether a content neutral law is constitutional

Important Cases

New York Times Co. v. United States- the Court established a “heavy presumption against prior restraint,” even in cases involving national security. This means that the Court is very likely to find cases of government censorship unconstitutional

Reed v. Town of Gilbert- case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage

Current Issues or Controversies

The issue with net neutrality is one that currently deals with the concept of free speech. Of course, it does not necessarily stop anything from being put out into the world, however it certainly does not help it either. It does not conflict with any forms of interest directly, but yet it still finds a way to hide certain opinions and ideas. This makes it hard for speech to be heard when media is privatized and no longer is truly free.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 1 Topic Overview The Law of the Land comes about from a number of places throughout the country. These laws are here to define boundaries of acceptable behavior, establishing power and ranges of punishment, and dictating procedures for creating, applying, interpreting, and changing the Law. We can see statutes that are enacted either at the federal or state level and Congress as well as other smaller legislatures are the ones that draft them into being. Although the legislative branch does draft the bills that become laws, they also pass through the executive branch for approval and the judiciary branch for final review. Even though the Judiciary is often looked over it is one of the most powerful branches of government since it holds the ability of judicial review. This means that they ultimately get the final say on what can and cannot become law. Aside from the previously stated responsibility the courts also deal with all cases in either civil o...
Post a Comment
Read more
Topic Review During times of instability within the nation, speech and the freedom of expression in perhaps negative connotations towards the government has and will always be more susceptible of restraint and infringement of personal rights. During such cases where the courts had to come to challenging verdicts it was evident that delineating dangers of incitement versus angry and negative speech would prove challenging. However, protecting national security and stopping immanent violence have proven to be sufficient grounds that outweigh certain speech protections. From such events, we the courts have developed tests like the Brandenburg/Hess Test, which deals with incitement and speech that is more than likely to produce an immediate threat. On top of that courts also rarely find media liable since reasonable people should be able to foresee harm headed their way. Speech needs to become an overt act of threat or intimidation for it to be regulated and punished...
Post a Comment
Read more