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.