Instructor Resource
Trager, The Law of Journalism and Mass Communication 6e
CQ Press, 2018
Class Activities
Chapter 2: The First Amendment
1. Exercises that ask students to determine whether a given law is content-based or content-
neutral are very useful especially in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert’s far-reaching
implications. A follow-up discussion about the effects of the two types of laws leads
naturally into exploration of the levels of scrutiny and how they operate to protect
constitutional liberties. This leads logically into discussion of the often slippery excavation of
legislative intent. Finally, students may be encouraged to critically evaluate the operation of
the tests and the basic assumption of the Supreme Court that content-neutral laws are actually
more benign than content-based restrictions.
2. A discussion of the somewhat unclear distinction between government speech and private
(government employee) speech allows an exploration of the many distinctions (dare we call
them categories, given Reed v. Town of Gilbert?) the Court makes among differing types of
speech and by different speakers. Consider, for example, whether the guidelines from the
Office of Special Counsel providing exemption from the Hatch Act for display of materials
from Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign fulfills the intention of the Act. Is this a form of
politicking? What about the ban on certain types of Facebook posts and tweets by
government employees on their personal social media during their own time?
3. Many students are intrigued by the concept of government funding creating virtual public
forums, particularly as the case law in this domain frequently has involved university
campuses. The university cases afford the opportunity to move from abstract or detached
conversations to situations that present direct challenges to the students’ own values and
self-interest. Here is a valuable chance to explore whether we, as individuals, really believe
in freedom of speech or whether, as Nat Hentoff said so aptly, we believe in “free speech for
me, but not for thee” (Nat Hentoff, Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee, 1992).
4. A variety of early actions by the Trump administration imposed new limits on dissemination
of information from government employees and agencies. (See, e.g., Reuters, Trump
Administration Seeks to Muzzle U.S. Agency Employees, Jan. 24, 2017, at
Instructor Resource
Trager, The Law of Journalism and Mass Communication 6e
CQ Press, 2018
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-idUSKBN15822X). In protest, scientists rallied
people across the country for the March for Science on Washington, DC, on Earth Day, April
15, 2015. Discuss first whether Trump’s ban was an illegal government restraint on personal
speech. Why not? Then have students consider whether the ban likely reduced or increased
public interest and discussion about the work of targeted information. What about the content
of that discussion?
5. Insight into censorship can be enhanced through activities that explore contemporary prior
restraints. Look to the break-out boxes in the chapter and to news items for focal topics that
will enable the class to explore how prior restraint in today’s digital, interconnected global
environment differs from the 17th-century British licensing and issuing of stamps for
approved printers.
6. For some students, the “Je suis Charlie” protests will be ancient history or not even a
memory. Pull protests from the headlines (e.g., anti-Trump protests and women’s marches
early in 2017 or even newer protests) to examine the countervailing issues of: improper
“heckler’s veto,” limited (censorious?) media coverage of non-mainstream issues and
speakers (e.g., unequal access to media ‘forums’), the meaning of free speech if mainstream
media dominate political debate and self-governance, the contribution of Twitter and
Facebook and other new/social media to an environment in which every voice matters (but
who can be “heard” when everyone is “talking”?), and issues of tyranny of the powerful/the
majority/those with a microphone.