CHAPTER SIX: FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, and ASSOCIATION
Type: E
1. Explain the standard the Court set out for determining prior restraint in Near v. Minnesota.
Type: E
2. What exceptions might make necessary government prior restraint on the press?
3. Was the Court’s decision in New York Times v. U.S. definitive or are there doubts about the
extent to which there is a national security exception to free press? Why or why not?
4. How do the rights of the press differ from the general press and a school sponsored student
press?
5. How does Kuhlmeier square with Tinker? Can you reconcile them or do they contradict one
another? Explain your rationale.
6. How has the Court generally dealt with the publication of information about trial proceedings?
Given at least two examples.
7. How does the U.S. compare to other nations when it comes to freedom of the press? Do most
nations have free press in the way we do in the U.S.?
8. Why is the Court more willing to allow regulation of broadcast media than of print media?
9. Is the internet more akin to printed press or to broadcast media? Why? How do you think the
internet will be regulated in the future?
10. To what extent has the Court argued that the press has the right to access greater than that
enjoyed by the general public?
11. Why did the framers belief the freedom of press was so fundamental to the new nation?
12. How has the war on terror affected the government’s use of prior restraint when it comes to
military affairs? How does this compare to other nation’s use of prior restraint?
13. What rationale did the Court use to deny the reporter’s privilege in Branzburg v. Hayes?
14. What is the Court’s general view of the right of access for the press?
15. In Branzburg v. Hayes. the Court ruled that:
16. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the Court ruled that:
17. As a general rule the Court has upheld content regulations of the press:
18. In Miami Herald v. Tornillo the Court found that:
19. New York Times v. U.S. virtually eradicated:
20. Prior Restraint:
21. All of the following are exceptions that may allow the government to invoke prior restraint
22. In Cox Broadcasting why did the Court protect the right of the press to publish the name of a
rape victim?
23. In comparison to other nations, the U.S. generally has
24. When it comes to content regulation:
Essay Questions:
Type: E
25. Despite the fact that the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law “…abridging
the freedom…of the press,” the Supreme Court has recognized the need to limit the press in
certain instances. Explain the Court’s willingness to place restrictions on the press, and under
what circumstances such restrictions are warranted. Also, discuss the distinctions made by the
Court between different types of media. Is the Court more or less willing to restrict the First
Amendment rights of radio, TV, or print journalism? How has the Court dealt with the issue of
prior restraint? In what circumstances is prior restraint allowed?
26. Under what condition has the Court been willing to allow content in the press to be
restricted? Does the form of the media matter? How has the Court dealt with cases involving
special rights for the Media? Has the Court been willing to recognize that reporter’s enjoy
greater freedoms than others? Why or why not?
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Relevant Case Facts:
A 1925 Minnesota law provided for “the abatement, as a public nuisance, of a ‘malicious,
scandalous, and defamatory newspaper, magazine, or other periodical.’” In 1927, a county
attorney asked a state judge to issue a restraining order banning publication of the Saturday
Press. In the attorney’s view the newspaper, partly owned by Jay Near, was malicious,
scandalous, and defamatory. The paper committed itself to uncovering corruption in
Minneapolis, but the articles it published were colored by Near’s racist and anti-Semitic
attitudes. A judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the sale of printed and future
editions of the paper. Near first got help of ACLU, but dropped them and got help from editor of
the Chicago Tribune.
Legal Question: Is a statute authorizing the prior restraint of a newspaper consistent with the
liberty of the freedom of the press?
Reasoning:
New York Times v. United States (1971)
Relevant Case Facts:
In 1971 the New York Times and Washington Post began publishing articles on the Pentagon
Papers, which was a massive history of how the U.S. got involved in the war in Indochina. After
the newspapers published several installments the U.S. brought action asking a district judge to
restrain them from publishing any longer. The government’s argument was that the articles
would cause irreparable damage to national security. The newspapers said the material was
largely historical and the government’s attempt amounted to prior restraint.
Legal Question: Does the government interest in protecting national security justify prior
restraint?
Reasoning:
Concurrences:
Black, with Douglas joining
Douglas, with Black joining
Brennan
Stewart, with White joining:
White, with Stewart joining:
Dissents
Burger:
Harlan, with Burger and Blackmun joining:
Blackmun:
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Relevant Case Facts:
Editors of The Spectrum, a High School newspaper, planned to publish articles on teen
pregnancy and divorce. The school principal said that the way the stories were written, readers
would be able to tell who the students were. As such he would not allow publication. The student
staff challenged this ruling as censorship.
Legal Question: May educators exercise editorial control over the contents of a high school
publication produced as a part of the school’s journalism curriculum?
Reasoning:
Dissent (Brennan, with Blackmun and Marshall joining):
CASE CUT DELETE IF YOU LIKE
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969)
Relevant Case Facts:
When it was created in 1934 the FCC has required that both sides of issues be presented on
television and radio stations and to provide fair coverage of those issues. This policy is widely
known as the “fairness doctrine.” WGCB broadcast a program entitled the “Christian Crusade”
during which Reverend Billy James Hargis verbally attacked Fred Cook who had written a book
critical of Barry Goldwater. Cook asked WGCB to allow him to respond on the air, asserting the
fairness doctrine. When the station refused Cook went to the FCC which held that Red Lion was
not in compliance with fairness doctrine and ordered the station to give Cook equal time.
Legal Question: Does fairness doctrine violate the 1st Amendment guarantee of Freedom of the
Press?
Reasoning:
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
Relevant Case Facts:
Branzburg wrote two articles about individuals in the drug trade. The first focused on two
individuals who synthesized hashish from marijuana. The second contained interviews with drug
users in Frankfort Kentucky. Branzburg was subpoenaed by a grand jury to answer questions
concerning the identity of the individuals. He refused to do so.
Legal Question: Does requiring reporters to appear and testify before grand juries violate their
freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the 1st Amendment?
Reasoning: