COMM3631: Freedom of Speech

"Prior Restraint is such a severe form of censorship that any form of it, even now, evokes feelings of distrust in many citizens, legislators, and jurists in England and the United States." (T&H, 244) This quote from the book really stuck out to me throughout the whole 9th Chapter because of how much that same censorship is going on now with the trump administration. In an article from the New York Times, they talk about the suspension of Jemele Hill, an ESPN commentator, for her tweets against the President of the U.S. and for the coach of the Dallas Cowboys. Trump in several tweets suggested she be fired, thus censoring her and her opinions. New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/sports/football/jemele-hill-suspended-espn.html

For many today, freedom of speech can referred to information given and taken away for an example news feed. Trumpians (as they call them) support Trumps big decision to controlling news given to President Trump as well as his supporting. I am referring to #fakenews. This new reverence of the press is a new scheme to an already well practised idea. Looking back in our books, monarchs, priests, political leaders like the English Parliament used different laws to never talk bad among the authoritarians around their day. As rebels, the colonist fought back to establish the First Amendment giving Freedom to the Press, allowing information to be never control by popular demand (in theory) or authority. However now, we look at #fakenews and wonder if Trumpians know these relicts as controversy. Other authorians like Kim Jung Un control media and intranet in their countries order to control social opinion on the outside and inner world North Koreans live in. Of course between North Kor...

Prior restraint is basically the government attempting to stop information they deem not good from getting to the public. They can use this against anyone, reporters, superstars, my mom, and even bloggers, though my moms not going down without a fight (; . In 2013 the government issued a prior restraint on a blogger from alabama named Roger Shuler, in order to try and stop the alleged affair of a former state governors son. Now, this guy is notorious for 'exposing' government secrets being held from the public. He runs a blog called Legal Schnauzer; the platform he uses to get his stories out. Well, this passionate blogger said to hell with the government and that dudes son! What did he do? He posted the blog anyways and was immediately charged with contempt of court and resisting arrest, what a guy *clap clap clap* Also he explained to his wife afterwards that he was 'roughed up' as well. Now, it wasn't easy finding an article i wanted to write about with this on...

Prior restraint  is government action that prohibits  speech   or other expression before it can take place. Many see this as unconstitutional and a form of censorship. The two forms of prior restraint we see the most often are: a regulation or rule that requires a speaker to obtain some sort of permit/license before speaking or a court order that bans the speech or action. An example of a court order that bans speech or action is known as a "gag order". This order prohibits the parties that are involved in the legal dispute from talking to the press, or anyone else. "Gag orders" can be used to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, protect the privacy of victims, protect the integrity of police or military operations, and protect the trade secrets of a company. However, "gag orders" can sometimes be used to intimidate others and prevent the release of important information.  In the early 2000's allegations of prisoner abuse at Guantanam...

From my understanding of the reading, in order to uphold those very values of freedom of expression, we should practice tolerance and grant breathing space for ideas while discouraging stopping the dissemination of ideas before they reach the public (even if those ideas are toxic to all hell). In addition to exceptions to allowable speech like obscenity and incitement to violence that we've hashed out already, I found conflicts to national interest fascinating to think about in terms of where we draw the line between speech that is too "dangerous" to be published. In New York Times v United States (1971), SCOTUS determined the government needed a damn good reason plus burden of proof to issue a prior restraint, and allowed the publication of the contents of the Pentagon Papers, which was fine, but are we putting too much emphasis on the 1st Amendment and not enough on other areas of the Constitution? I definitely understand the reasoning for allowing secret government i...

The issue of prior restraint in regards to film has been a long contested battle between filmmakers and public lawmakers. In the early parts of the 1900's film was subject to governance by local and state authorities. It wasn't until 1952 when the Supreme Court rejected the attempt to ban the movie The Miracle that we began to see change occur in the freedom of speech in film (Tedford and Herbeck 251). In modern times films are rated before they can be shown in theaters and in order to be banned they must be proven to be illegal after they are released. There was a unique case of prior restraint in 2014 surrounding the movie The Interview. The Interview  was a movie starring Seth Rogen and James Franco and the plot was that those two worked for a television program and secured an interview with dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong Un. After getting the interview the CIA approaches them about assassinating Un. As you can imagine North Korea did not respond well to the idea of thi...

As discussed in our textbook, prior restraint has been a tool utilized by the government to censor material and information deemed inappropriate, immoral, and a threat to our national security (Tedford & Herbeck, 244). Throughout the chapter the authors elude to this idea of "public decency", citing the reason for censorship as the publication or dissemination of immoral material. Because they serve as gatekeepers of this information, the government has the agency and power to interpret and construct what and who the "public" is. Or rather, who and what is protected. And use this vague terminology to rationalize their actions. Last week during our lecture on commercial speech, we discussed about what types of persons are protected (in the context of sin to vice product advertising): the pregnant, elderly, children, and babies. I think it's interesting to draw this distinct parallel between the censorship of publication and the censorship of commercial s...

The beginning of chapter 9 focused the basic issues of Prior Restraint. Prior restraint is a legal restraint on material before publication. It’s an order that prevents publication." The author gives a few example on cases where prior restraint has proven to be an issue. I found the section covering, Control on the Distribution of Handbills and Leaflets to be interesting. Mostly because if discusses the appeal of Alma Lovell. She was a Jehovah;s witness who was convicted of passing out religious literature in 1938. Which is interesting because being on campus there are often people from various organizations and  denominations casually hanging out information for their cause. Lovell argued that she was sent by Jehovah to had out publications. The court ruled, that she needed to have permission before handing out any publications in public. This is interesting because I assumed religious publications held some kind of privilege under the first amendment. I found Justice Robert...

A particular sentence I found interesting from chapter 8 is on page 254, "Although legal scholars disagree about precisely what the Founding Fathers believed about freedom of expression, there is little if any disagreement that many problems the nation faces today are more threatening than those that existed in the late eighteenth century," ( Tedford and Herbeck  254). The "problems the nation faces today" part immediately made me think of an extremely recent event involving climate change.  The Environmental Protection Agency canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island (New York Times). The conference's goal was to draw attention the largest estuary in New England, Narragansett Bay, and scientists were going to unveil the state of the bay there. The article detailing this cancellation found no clear explanation for this cancellation other than that "it wa...

It is understandable that people would think prior restraint should be unconstitutional for the reasoning that we should be allowed to voice our opinions and personal information how we choose. As addressed in the First Amendment, we can speak freely and publicly if it does not cause harm, violence, or intent thereof. It may seem that prior restraint is going against our right to speak because it involves stalling people from posting, announcing or voicing their experiences and opinions, and first reviewing and oftentimes crossing parts of speech out of the original message. So, yeah it is understandable that people would think prior restraint is unconstitutional; it is stopping people from having their full voice. With that understanding, I argue that prior restraint is constitutional and should actually be more strict than it is now. One reason in particular is the potential to leak our government secrets that are meant to protect our country and our people (i.e. compromise na...

Prior restraint has been an issue in the United States for a long time. In our book, prior restraint can be described as " stopping a message before it is communicated" (Tedford and Herbeck, Pg. 245) The way that I take this, individuals or groups are trying to "protect" us from reality. But really, how much "protection" is this really providing for us? By screening us from the truth, reality is skewed and it disables the public from consuming media that may even help to "culture" our society. Profanity, racism and the depiction of rape or sexual intercourse are all uncomfortable topics, but does that make them harmful to society? Why not use topics like these to perpetuate growth, rather than censoring reality from people. Just recently, a school district in Memphis, Tennessee has banned the popular novel To Kill A Mocking Bird from its curriculum. After a few complaints from parents of students in the district, the school decided to cut the bo...

In Near v. Minnesota the rules established relating to prior restraint are as follows: “Because prior restraint is such an extreme remedy for abuses of freedom of expression, the constitution prohibits it except in rare circumstances (such as to safeguard national security in a time of war, maintain public decency, or to protect a community from incitement of violence” (246, Tedford and Herbeck). When I started to think about issues of prior restraint I immediately thought of one of my favorite true crime podcasts Up and Vanished. In this Podcast, Payne Lindsey investigates the murder of Tara Grinstad. The case had gone cold after several years when Lindsey started his podcast. The podcast gained popularity quickly and due to Lindsey investigation and the amount of attention brought to the case an arrest was made. I highly recommend the podcast for anyone interested in true crime. This case is currently dealing with issues of prior restraint. I’ll attached an article here explainin...