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).

Brit, Due Process, and a 5150

Due process can be seen as fairness under the law or having your legal right's respected.

Spears' rights are protected under a 5150 because, if she is unable to seek the help she needs because of mental issues, her family or friends can begin the process. Then, after the 72 hour involuntary hold and evaluation, Spears can decide on seeking further treatment. Our rights are also protected because a 5150 can involuntarily committ someone who is a threat to others. Thus protecting our rights to safety. Also, our rights are protected because the 51050 gives family members or even friends the ability to help their loved ones when they could be unable to help themselves. The family actually has an option, instead of just having to sit by and watch their love ones self-destruct. (Obviously, if the person is a threat to others it is easier to get them out of a position to hurt someone and protect others than it would be to committ someone if they weren't a potential threat to someone else, only to themselves.)

I think they are the same rights because no one should fear for their lives, even if it is themselves that could hurt them. People have a right to safety even if that means being protected from themselves.


Also, her rights are being protected in that she can not just be committed forever by her parents', police or a doctor's will. Once she is committed involuntarily, the proper authorities have 72 hours (and even then possibly 14 days) to prove that she should stay. Otherwise, she will be released - which is within her rights because nothing was found to keep her there. If they can not make a good case for her to be committed for any extended length of time, she has the right to leave. In this way. she is protected from not being committed permanently, against her will if nothing is really wrong with her - if she is not a threat to others or herself.

I am not really sure if her rights are being safeguarded from what I have read in the news. I haven't read too much on it, except what we've looked at in class. I definately think she needs help, and her parents obviouisly feel the same way because they used the 5150 to get her the help she needs. I also think that she needs to be left alone by the media. I think that's the only way she is going to be able to get better and get her life on track for her children. The media needs to leave Britney alone, so she can be out of the spotlight and be able to see and focus on what is really wrong with her. If the media stops feeding on Britney (which gets society at large to chill out and leave her alone), she can stop feeding on them. Once they are gone, she won't have anything to hide behind, and she will have to face up to what is wrong. I hope that happens. She needs to put the already broken pieces of her life back together, and that won't happen if society and the media keep trudging through them.

In regards to the code of ethics, the cannon of "seek truth and report it" was observed in that the headlines did not carry overwhelming shock value to get people's attention. They just told what the article was about. They also seemed to identify sources to the best of their ability. I do not think the cannon "minimize harm" is being upheld with these stories. The code states that "Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect" and "only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy." I do not think that there is an overriding public need to get into Spears's business as much as all of these reporters are doing - ABC and MTV included. Spears's mental health is not an issue of national security and delving into as much as they are does not respect her right to privacy. I do think that they are sticking to the "Be Accountable" cannon because most reporters, news websites, etc. have ways that the community can respond to their work.

As I mentioned before, I do not think she is getting the break she deserves because the news media are playing the events up like they are the be all and end all of news nowadays. By doing this, I think they are putting her more at risk than she already is. I do not think she is getting the same break we would because she is a celebrity. I know the code says journalists should "recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention." However, there has to be a line where the reporters realize that enough is enough, that their publicity is not helping, and may infact be harming, their target. Like I said, Spears's mental health is not a matter of national security. I think journalists who cover Britney Spears need to really ask themselves if the public really has an "overriding need" to know about this. Hey! Guess what! (What?) The stockmarket will not crash, a bomb will not be dropped, and the world as we know it will NOT come to an end if the media leaves Spears alone. I dare them to try. See what happens.

Due Process of Law

When asked what is meant by "due process of law", I immediately thought of the right to a fair trial. But, it is more than that. Due process of law refers to the principle that all of a person's legal rights must be respected by the government. It is, simply, fairness.

Walter Burgwyn Jones, at the time of the New York Times trial, was circuit judge of Montgomery County. Jones was very devoted and determined. He held fast to traditional southern values and belived in the Confederacy. Jones did much to try and stop the Civil Rights Movement because he wanted to preserve the southern way of life. Walter Burgwyn Jones wrote Alabama Pleading and Practice at Law, that was a leading text of the times.

T. Eric Embry was the defense lawyer in the libel case against the New York Times, that became known as New York Times Company v. Sullivan. He used Jones's book to help him in his defense for the case. However, Jones essentially overruled his own book, by saying that The Times was within reach of the Alabama state courts because Embry followed Jones's advice in his book.

I do not find it surprising that Judge Jones did this. The fact that he did this shows just how hyped up the south was in preserving the southern way of life where whites had supremacy. This tells me that public opinion in Alabama was titled towards Judge Jones's point-of-view. They were willing to do anything, and twist any law or regulation, in their favor that would help them in the case.

What they were trying to do in this case was not acquire monetary damages (sure, maybe they were), but they were trying to begin the process of killing the press, taking away their freedom to report. They wanted to make it to where they could sue for libel when the reporters wrote anything about what was happening with discrimination and the Civil Rights Movement in the south. What they were trying to do was intimidate and regulate the press with this case, so that nothing about the Civil Rights Movement would get covered. This was done to rpeserve what they thought was an acceptable way of life. I also think they were running scared because they realized that all of this press coverage (true or not, libelous or not) could and would expose the horrors of discrimination, and it could spark more change to do away with it.

This just shows that even the people who are in charge of ensuring/respecting a person's rights (due process)don't always do that. Sometimes, as sad as it is to admit, people's own agendas get into the mix. People's rights sometimes are no match for a power-tripping judge. Lewis even said in the book that Embry thought "Judge Jones actually helped to plan the libel actions by Sullivan and the others" (26). It just goes to show that they way things should be may not always actually be the way things are, and that's truly dissapointing given that people's lives could be shattered in the process. And it would just be to ensure that the views of a power-hungry authority figure (or government) prevailed, regardless of the laws in place to protect the people they (it) serves.

In closing, I feel this case shows that, even though most of understand and agree with how things should be done (in regards to fairness under the law), we realize that that's not always the way it is. That's the change that needs to occur - fairness for all. You may not like it, but that's what our country was built on - fairness, equality and freedom. Everyone should have the right to those things, not just me, not just you.