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.