Clear, Confusing, etc.

The clearest point that has been made to me in Mass Media Law and Ethics is that freedom of speech has been contested and will continue to be tested throughout history. It was very interesting to learn about the development of certain laws or acts that were created by our Government in times of war to censor the press and freedom of speech. It was equally as interesting to learn about how the press and society fought back in order to keep our democracy (and what that really means) intact.

One of the more confusing points in the course has been the determination of fact vs. law. I feel that sometimes I think too hard about what each part means specifically, whereas I should consider that, more often than not, the two will at some point begin to run together. Facts can lead to the application of a specific law or laws can be reworked or developed based on the facts. (At least, this is what I am getting out of it. See? It’s confusing!)

I would like to continue learning about the history behind the constitution and the different laws and court cases affecting freedom and speech and the press. (This is because I have a history minor with my elementary education degree. History has always been a passion of mine. To see where things began, where they went to, and where they could be headed. I like the Anthony Lewis book). I would also like to possibly discuss more current cases in the media like we have been doing.

Is that a fact? No, it's the law! Wait, WHAT??

Abrams v. United States

Facts: Four Russian refugees were prosecuted for distributing leaflets that protested American involvement in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution and that encouraged a strike against American involvement.

Law: The defendants were "charged with an attempt to harm American prosecution of the war against Germany" (Lewis, 76). Justice John H. Clarke said that "the language of their leaflets had the effect of interfering with the war with Germany . . . [they] were ' accountable for the effects which their acts were likely to produce'" (Lewis, 77). Convictions were upheld.

Quote: Chief Justic Holmes, dissenting, said "Congress certainly can not forbid all effort to change the mind of the country" (Lewis, 77).

From the desk of Nikkie Prosperini: I think he felt that Congress was trying to use every ounce of power they had to crush all dissenting publications, however small. (And that that wasn;t right. Um, it's not. At least, I don't think it's right for a government to do that).

Whitney v. California

Facts: Anita Whitney was charged with "criminal syndicaslism" - or supporting the use of violence/force to insight political change or "change in industrial ownership" (Lewis, 84-85).

Law: Whitney was convicted of being a member of an organization that promoted criiminal syndicalism because her lawyers failed to prove that her being a member of the group was not a "clear and present" danger to society.

Quote: Jusice Brandeis, a dissenter, said "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" (Lewis, 86).

From the desk of Nikkie Prosperini: Here, I agree with Brandeis that the only way to bring about change and combat what we feel is not good for our society (that we as sovereign people govern) is to discuss what is actually happening, so that eyes can be opened and change for the betterment of society can occur, if it is meant to.

Near v. Minnesota

Facts: Hennepin County attorney, Floyd B. Olson invoked a public nuisance law against Jay M. Near for his publication of The Saturday Press.

Law: A Public Nuisance Law could be used against papers that was "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" (Lewis, 91). The paper was shut down under this law. It was then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where it was said . . .

Quote: by Chief Justice Hughes, in the opinion,: "Meanwhile, the administration of government has become more complex, the opprotunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most serious proportions . . . [this] emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities" (Lewis, 94).

From the desk of Nikkie Prosperini: Obviously sometimes, the government or selected officials will not want the public to know what is going on (if they acting corruptly). It is then the press's job to expose what our government is not telling us. That is the only way we can control our freedoms, and decide whether the government is acting in our society's best interest. The press can be the link society needs to the truth.

Would you drink Hemlock? And Other Thoughts on Sedition and Freedom of Speech/Press

1. All of these things – from freedom fries to the PATRIOT Act of 2001 – were created in times of war (or in times where America feared the possibility of war or dissent) to combat anti-American or unpatriotic thought, speeches, literature or even food that criticized the government or its policies. (Well, okay, maybe the food didn’t criticize the government. But potatoes definitely had the potential to inspire revolution – riiiiiight). These things limit freedom of speech and of the press because they allow for dissident or critical speech or literature against the government, its policies, or leaders to be a crime. Therefore, people were no longer allowed to speak their minds, either vocally or on paper, which violated their rights to freedom of speech and the press. (I don’t get it. I really don’t. We came to America, from Britain, to be able to create our own government and not be punished for criticizing it – as we were for criticizing the crown when we were still a colony.)

2. To be prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Acts, people had to say things that criticized the government. Some things that were said included that certain government policies were headed for disaster, and that the “Government was hostile to the country’s welfare . . . and ‘that the people ought to raise and insurrection against the Government’” (Lewis, 59). John Adams was also referred to as a “’hoary headed incendiary’” (Lewis, 64). Compared to political discourse today, the things said against the government or political opponents and leaders are about the same. Criticism of political opponents, governments, and leaders is not a new concept and will continue as long as our society remains one in which the people are sovereign and can make choices regarding who is put in charge of their nation. We have the freedom to criticize and make choices for our betterment (or at least we should – these acts take away from some of that). The list of statements that could have been prosecuted under Alien and Sedition Acts if they were still enforced is ENDLESS. I would have been prosecuted (or shot, or made to drink hemlock).