Skip to main content

Up and Vanished and Prior Restraint

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 explaining the details of the case in relation to prior restraint. A short summary is that a judge in Georgia issued a gag order on the case out of fear that the defendant would not get a fair trial. Attorney’s arguing against the gag order state that the judge that issued the gag order “went straight to a measure of last resort”. Personally, I think the gag order is unconstitutional. It doesn’t fit the rules establish in Near v. MN and I agree with the attorneys arguing that the judge went to a measure of last resort. There are other ways to ensure a fair trial, such as moving the case to a different town, that would not require prior restraint. Has anyone else listened to Up and Vanished? What do you think of the judge’s gag order? The Georgia supreme court will be ruling on the issue hopefully sometime this week.

Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.
Tucker, Katheryn. “Gag Order in Beauty Queen Murder Case Goes to  Ga. Supreme Court.”
            Law.com, 12 Oct. 2017, www.law.com/sites/dailyreportonline/2017/10/12/gag-order-
            in-beauty-queen-murder-case-goes-to-gasupremecourt/?slreturn=20170923201317.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more