Thursday, April 14, 2011

Prior Restraint


Please share one important point that you have learned thus far as you have researched your case. Be specific, and explain it well.

56 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nolan and I are researching the Near v. Minnesota case. One really important thing that I have researched so far, I think would have to be that the officials that were implicated in the case. A few of the officials were accused of being involved with gangsters and crime. When Jay Near wanted to post this article about them in the newspaper he was declined down by people. When the mayor and chief officials heard about this they were offended because they have also been involved with gangs and crime. Therefore they went to court about it and Jay Near won it. He is allowed to write whatever he wants to in the newspaper as long as it didn’t go against the government, which it did not.

Jenny G said...

The first amendment's freedom of speech is about what someone said. In my case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, an unidentified person intercepted and recorded a telephone conversation. It got passed on to a Vopper and he aired it on his radio show. They other guys wanted to sue him. A big part of this case is that what he played on his show was true, not libel.That was a major fact in the decision of this case. It was part of something the public wanted to know about. The first amendment protected the radio broadcast. It can depend on what you say.

luke said...

One fact that I have learned during the research process was that it is very difficult to prevent a newspaper from releasing information. It is very hard because even if the information was received illegally it still can be published as long as it wasn't the newspaper itself.

TUCKER GOUIN said...

I have learned that with prior restraint that it is very hard to get a case pulled no matter what happens. In the case The New York Times v. The U.S. the decision was in favor of the New York Times even though the documents that they were going to publish were acquired illegally from the pentagon and it could have as a threat to national security. Justice Hugo Black said that they could not pull the article because if they did it would make it easier in the future.

Annie Love! said...

In the case Bartnicki v. Vopper, a unidentified person intercepted a phone conversation between the chief negotiator and the union president. The unknown individual gave it to a radio commentator named Vopper. Vopper then played it on his public affairs talk show. Petitioners filed a damages suit under federal and state wiretapping laws, claiming that the conversation had been illegally intercepted by a unidentified person. I learned that even if you did not commit the crime, in this case illegally intercepting the conversation, you are still a witness [Vopper] because Vopper had played it on his talk show for people to hear, although they are not supposed to.

Katie McNulty said...

I am researching Near vs. Minnesota. One thing that I found important was that Olson filed a complaint against Near and Guilford under the Public Nuisance Law of 1925. It gave permanent rulings against people who created a "public nuisance," by publishing, selling, or distributing a "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspaper.

Anonymous said...

Im my research on the case New York Times vs. Sullivan, I have learned about actual malice. In this case, Sullivan, and elected police official in Montgomery, Alabama, sued the new York Times about an add that was placed in the paper about four protesters. They were fighting for civil rights and the add described police brutality, harming Sullivan's reputation. This case established actual malice. Actual malice means that there had to be a malicious attempt to commit the crime. In this case, Sullivan one five thousand dollars and the Times also published a retraction.

Anonymous said...

I am doing the case of Bartnicki vs. Vopper. Vopper played a phone conversation between a Cheif navigator and a Union president. This recording was from an unknown person. However Vopper played this illegally recorded message on his radio talk show. Vopper was sued under the wiretapping laws. I learned that even though Vopper did not record the conversation he still played it and was sued for it.

Anonymous said...

The first amendment's freedom of press is a essential right that is a part of the case Near vs. Minnesota. Jay Near a citizen in Minnesota discovered and thought that a few of the officials in the area were associated with gangsters. As a result Jay Near decided to protest and publish an article in the newspaper, but when he decided to do this he was declined by the people saying this was not allowed, going against MInnesota's "gag law". When the mayor heard about this he was offended because he was also involved in gangsters. Jay Near decided to take this to court and as a result Near won and was allowed to publish his article. This situation that Near won was allowed due to the protection that he had under the first amendment right that he had in freedom of press.

ariana said...

What Thomas, Mason and I are researching is the The Miami Herald v. Tornillo. One important thing that I learned in this case is that the herald published something saying about tornillo and his candidacy running for state office. He demanded that the Herald publish his answer but they denied and he sued. Tornillo sued in Dade Country Circuit Court under Floride Statute, which granted political candidates criticized by any newspaper to have the right to have their answer published. The herald in doing so challenged the statute as a violation of free press clause of the first amendment. Circuit Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. The "right to reply" statute violated the freedom of press found in the first Amendment

nolan murray said...

Lindsay and I are researching the Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota (1931). The most important part of this specific case is that when Jay Near wrote an article accusing the town officials of being involved with organized crime they seized it before it was published. Their doing was a test of prior restraint, which means that they seized a document before being published. Jay Near won the case 5-4.

James said...

Mat, SaraH and I research the Miami herald v.s Tornillo case.one thing that i have learned so far is the right to reply law. This law states that you can defend yourself against public criticism in the same venue where it was published. This is a big part of our case because this is what he is defending him self with.

tconheeney said...

i have learned that an amendment can cancel out a law.
IN my case the first amendment cancels out a federal wire taping act. This showed me that there is nothing more important then amendment, in the eyes of judges.

Anonymous said...

One important point that I have learned from the case I was assigned- New York Times vs. USA is that New York Times can write about the governments opinion about war. Despite the fact, it makes them look badly and they didn't want it published.

Joey said...

One important fact I learned about my case, New York Times Co. v. United States, was that it was incredibly difficult for the government to stop a newspaper from publishing something.In order for them to do so, it needed to create a "grave and irreparable danger", which didn't come up that often. Another reason is that the press was created to protect the citizens of the country, so a newspaper would most likely not publish something that would put he country in danger.

Sienna said...

In my case, Near v. Minnesota, I found that in general newspapers and magazines are generally hard to put out because of he content. If you offend someone in a major and/or exposing way then they could easily sue the company.

Josh Ford said...

Alyssa and i are researching and presenting information about the New York Times vs. Sullivan case. One thing we have learned is that mentioning the name of a person as a supporter of your subject of writing, if they are not, is libel. this is interesting to me, because it means that not only is the publication of people's actions defended by the first amendment, but their opinions as well. this will prove to be very important to my case.

Andrew Savage said...

I am researching New York Times v. Sullivan with Maura. An important fact I learned from researching this case is that it was an unanimous court decision against Sullivan. This is important because the value of free press must be astounding even with the hinderance of a damaged reputation (Sullivan's in this case). It was especially surprising because the New York Times had lost in the courts before the supreme court, and yet they are able to win 9-0 there.

Giulia said...

In my case Sullivan vs. New York Times, one important thing i learned during our research was actual malice. Actual Malice requires that a libel or defamation proves that the person who said or wrote the statement knew it was false... therefore it is almost impossible to prove because you can't exactly get inside his or her head. Because of that fault, The Times won the case.

Mason Propper said...

Thomas, Ariana and I are researching Miami Herald vs. Tornillo case. One important point that we have learned is that up until this case if someone criticized you in a newspaper, you were allowed to print something in the same newspaper that criticized you. This was called "right to reply" statute. This was later proven unconstitutional because it violated the 1st amendment.

Isi said...

Nick and I are researching New York Times v. Sullivan. It's during the Civil Rights Movement, and is about an article written in the New York Times that states that the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. was a plan to ruin his reputation. L.B. Sullivan, Montgomery city commissioner, sued, the newspaper and the four black ministers that sponsored it, for libel. He said that the article defamed him personally. The Alabama law said that Sullivan did not have to prove that we was harmed. One important thing that I learned from this case was that it is not a crime to write untruthful things unless they are made with malice. This caused Sullivan to lose the case.

John Tooher said...

Olivia and I are studying the Case of United States vs The New York Times. One important point is that the justices found nothing in the law that prevented the Times from printing the Pentagon Papers. This is important because although the justices felt as if the Times was breaking a law, their was nothing that said this was illegal.

Austin Cieszko said...

One important point that I learned while researching my case (Miami v. Tornillo) is that freedom of the press can be much more important than some would expect. This case involves a man simply wanting to write his political views in a newspaper of his. However, with the laws that America used to have against the press, he had to go to court and negotiate with the law he was guilty of disobeying.

ali weiner said...

Madeline, Luke Price, and I are researching the New York Times vs. Us case. There are many different aspects to this case, but one of the most important is the question of national security vs information the public is entitled to. In my case, the New York Times wants to reveal papers specifying troop movements and decisions in the Vietnam War. The US government claims that the release of these papers would spark more controversy therefore causing harm to the country or helping the enemy. While this is a fair statement, I agree with the New York Times' way to view the situation.They think that no matter the content, the people and citizens of the US have a right to know their position in the war and the first Amendment of freedom of the press enables that right to be protected by publicists like the New York Times.

Henry Bray said...

In Sullivan vs. New York Times, an important thing that i learned during our research was actual malice. Actual Malice requires that a libel or defamation proves that the person who said or wrote the statement knew it was false... therefore it is almost impossible to prove because you can't exactly get inside his or her head. Because of that fault, The Times won the case.

Frances said...

I am researching the case "Miami Herald v. Tornillo". Tornillo is running for the Florida House of Representatives and the Miami Herald publishes two editorials criticizing him. Tornillo demanded his responses be published in the Herald under the Florida Statute, which stated that a newspaper that criticizes a running, political candidate has to publish the candidate's responses to the articles. In court, it was decided that the statute is unconstitutional, and the Miami Herald won 9-0. This case displays that this statute is going against someone's (or many people's) free will of publishes things into their own newspaper.

johnny M said...

Lauren and I are studying the Near vs. Minnesota case. Jay Near publish false information about local officials being invloved with jewish gangsters in his weekley newspaper "the saturday press." These local officials Prevented Near from publishing his Newspaper by using the "Minnesota Gag law." To me, this law is a very key point of the case. The "Minnesota gag law" prevented Near from publishing the saturday press untill he brought it to court, where it was ruled unconstitutional and Near continued to publish his newspaper.

tcat said...

My group and I are researching a case called Miami Herald vs Tornillo. When the Herald published some bad things about Tornillo (who was Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association and a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives in Dade County, Florida) he wanted to, using the "Right to Reply", Reply negatively back on the Miami Heralds' own newspaper. After the herald rejected this request Tornillo sewed given the right to reply clause. Tornillo later on lost the case after the right to reply was ruled unconstitutional. An important point I learned from researching this case was that "the people's" rights are a very important part to America. If it wasnt for the freedom of press, speech, and assembly which were all argued for the Herald than it would be easy for Tornillo to win the case, but since we have such important and strong rights that didnt happen.

Marc said...

I have learned that in the case Barnicki v. Vopper a phone was tapped. In this phone call was information talking about a teachers strike. Since, the phone tapping was illegal the information was not allowed to be shared in a newspaper.

Olivia Savitz said...

John Tooher and I are researching the New York Times VS. United States case. One important point that i had learned throughout all of this is that amendments conquer all laws. The initial reason the United States government sued The Times was because they published private papers (known as the Pentagon Papers) about stipulating troop movements and decisions involving the Vietnam War. Although it was immoral for them to publicly display the papers, The Times won the case because they had the right to freedom of the press. As Justice Hugo Black called it “unfortunate” in his view “that some of my fellow justices are apparently willing to hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined. "Such a holding,” he wrote, “would make a shambles of the First Amendment.” Overall, i feel it is a vital component in my case that amendments will always beat laws, no matter what situation.

Julien said...

One thing that I have learned while researching NY Times v United States was that the case was brought to court and decided extremely quickly which somewhat invalidates it as a precedent because it took 2 and a half weeks from the initial charges to the supreme court ruling and there were thousands of documents involved in the case which makes some especially the dissenting justices feel as though the court was somewhat hasty and poorly judged their decision

Ctmera said...

The case that I was assigned is known as "Near v. Minnesota", and one important point that I have learned is that prior restraint is more of a... last resort more than anything. The circumstances required in order to merit a law to provide prior restraint are extreme. When Near circulated a publication stating that the Minneapolis officers were associated with gangster, the Minnesota officials pressed charges claiming that he was in violation of the Minnesota "gag" law. The "gag" law stated that the government had the right to silence/enjoin any publication too obscene or explicit. The Supreme Court ruled that the "gag" law was unconstitutional for it provided prior restraint, which is apparently quite a circumstantial concept.

Henry Catchpole said...

In the case that I am doing, New York Times v. Sullivan, I have learned a lot. In the case Sullivan who worked for the government sued the New York Times for an Ad in their paper that supported MLK. I learn that the Supreme Court made a law called Actual Malice which means that there had to be a malicious attempt to commit a crime for it to be a crime. In the end of the case Sullivan won half a million dollars and the justices decided 9-0.

Ali Futter said...

In doing my case, New York Times v. United States, I've learned that the government must prove that prior restraint is necessary in a case, and they must prove to the court that they should be allowed to use prior restraint. In New York Times v. United States, the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, a 7,000 page evaluation on how the United States got involved in the Vietnam War. The court decided that prior restraint could not be used here because it violated the First Amendment.

Lauren F said...

My Case Vopper v. Bartnicki deals with broadcasting a phone call intercepted by a 3rd party on a radio talk show. This case deals more with if Vopper had a right to use an intercepted call even though the conversation was private. The court found that Vopper had a right to broadcast the phone call. What I've learned through this case is that if a conversation deals with a public matter, like teachers at a public school bargaining for pay raises, the public has a right to know what is going on.

hannah said...

My group is researching NY Times v. Sullivan, and one point I've learned is that because of this case, now, freedom of speech protects false statements, as long as it doesn't purposefully harm someone, which is actual malice.

Luke Pritchard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luke Pritchard said...

One very important point and fact about the case Isabel, Ethan, and I are researching is about the first amendment freedom of the press. I learned that it is argued much more than I thought and also that there are much more little laws like state laws involved with this freedom. The one that takes place in my case, Miami Herald vs. Tornillo, is called the Florida "right of reply" law.

Alex Currie said...

my group is researching Miami Herald Vs Tornillo . Pat Tornillo was running for house of representatives and the Miami Herald ( a local news paper) published two editorials critisizing him and his candidacy. He demands that the newspaper publishes an article in which he will respond to the critisizim which is supported by Florida statue 104.38 which states that the newspaper must publish his article. The news paper refuses and claims that statue 104.38 is unconstitutional. I think this was the most important point of the case because it was the the main argument that decided the case and it can be easily argued as constitutional or non constitutional. It was argued unconstitutional based on the fact that it was limiting public debate and taking away the papers free speech the other party claimed that it was actually enhancing public debate because it was expressing opinion. These arguments decided the case and it makes it the most important and interesting point.

Lauren said...

Johnny and I are studying the case Near v. Minnesota. I learned about the first amendment regarding the freedom of press law. In this case Jay Near published scandelous information in a Minnesota newspaper about local officials the officials ordered an injuntion but the court ruled 5 to 4 that this was a direct violation of his first Amendment. So far i have learned a lot about the first Amendment (freedom of press) and what violates peoples rights.

Anonymous said...

The case that I am researching is New York Times v. Sullivan. It is a truly intriguing case. L.B Sullivan found numerous minor errors in an ad called "Heed Their Rising Voices" which was supporting the well known Dr. MLK Jr. He claimed that some of these errors were not only false but had hurt his reputation as well as the reputation of the Montgomery Police Department. He sued for libel but the court ruled that people are allowed to make errors in their writing at times. Thus, the Actual Malice Standard was made. Actual Malice is proof of showing that the author of a public piece knew it was fake before publishing it. This standard has been extended to cases involving public figures as well as public official. Reasoning that public figures will be at greater risk and that they will be the subject of public inquiry and have the ability available to be able to respond well to what they believe are untrue facts about them. The standard has been used in several cases and is a very important piece in the concepts of journalizing.

Keli said...

The case that I'm researching is Miami Herald V.. Tornillo. Pat Tornillo was executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association. Miami Herald published two editorials criticizing him, Pat Tornillo demanded to publish his responses. But Herald refused. In doing so, Tornillo sued to Dade County Circuit court under Florida Statute Section 104.38. The Florida Statute Section 104.38 states that any political candidate that is criticized in a newspaper that his/her responses are published into the newspaper. Heralds argument was that the Statute was unconstitutional, and violated the rights of First Amendment. Circuit Court ruled that the Statue was Unconstitutional. The final decision was 9 for Herald and 0 against.

Mahesh said...

I am researching Near vs Minnesota and I have learned that under no circumstances can someone abridge the speech rights of another person. This was interesting to me because Jay Near wrote some very defamatory articles in his newspaper and he wasn't able to be prosecuted.

Greg said...

In the case Bartnicki v. Vopper, a unidentified person intercepted a phone conversation between the chief negotiator and the union president. The unknown individual gave it to a radio commentator named Vopper. Vopper then played it on his public affairs talk show. Petitioners filed a damages suit under federal and state wiretapping laws, claiming that the conversation had been illegally intercepted by a unidentified person. I learned that even if you did not commit the crime, in this case illegally intercepting the conversation, you are still a witness [Vopper] because Vopper had played it on his talk show for people to hear, although they are not supposed to.

Tully said...

Julien and I have been researching The New York Times v. United States case. One really important point that is that the court realizes we have the right to freedom of press. The NEw York Times posted the Pentagon Paper, and the United States sued them for threatining National Security. The court decided that they had the right to publish freely.

Mariel Berger said...

In my case Sullivan vs. New York Times, I learned that people form different places make very different decisions based on where they come from or where they live now.This case shows a great example of it. when Sullivan and New York Times first went to court it was in a small time court house local to where the crime took place. Sullivan won the first case but then New York Times appealed to the Supreme court and the votes were unanimous 9-0.

Kate said...

One important point that i learned when researching my case, New York Times v. United States, is that it is very difficult to keep a newspaper from publishing whatever they want unless it creates a "clear and present danger." That danger says that if something being published would threaten the national security of the United States, it was in fact illegal. In this specific case, a clear and present danger was not presented, and thus the New York Times won the case.

Vicky:D said...

Conrad, Jeremy and I are researching the Near v. Minnesota case. One important thing that I have found out while researching this case is that if you offend someone in anyway in a newspaper, they can easily sue. This really interested me because I thought you could say almost anything in newspapers but from researching this case I realized that you can't.

luke price said...

I have learned that the right of the people to know what the government does surpasses national security. In my case, the new york times publicized secret troop movements in Vietnam and the government sewed them, but the new york times won using their first amendment rights. This proves that most things cannot be kept secret by the government without breaking the first amendment.

Henry Bray said...

What we learned in our project is that first Sullivan won his first case but in the end result he lost but the reason i believe he lost was is that he did not have a strong enough argument to appose the libel that was created by the New York Times

kendra scotti said...

Kate, Joe and I are researching the court case New York Times v. United States. One important fact that i have learned from this case is that if there is something that could potential harm the national security of the country a righter could not publish it. In this case a righter from the New York Times has the Pentagon Papers (important documents that based of the Vietnam War) and was going to publish the papers to the public.

Star :) said...

In my case I learned that an illeagally intercepted telephone conversation was intercepted and someone played it on his talk show. He was then sued, the thing that come into play here is the first amendment.

Ethan! said...

My group researched Miami Herald v. Tornillo, and one thing that I have learned is that the first amendment is very powerful and can be used by many people, but also against those people. Also that the government is not the highest power over amendments.

poooookah said...

My group and I researched Miami Herald vs Tornillo. An important point that i learned through my research was that the "Right of Reply" law was declared unconstitutional during this case because it violated the first amendment. Freedom of the press and Freedom to speak. The right of reply law basically forced the newspaper companies to publish things that they would not like to be published, which is against the first amendment.

Jamie Schwartz said...

For the research project, Gerg and I researched Bartnicki vs. Vopper. In Bartnicki vs. Vopper a telephone call was intercepted and played on air on a radio show. Bartnicki wanted to sure Vopper for airing the phone call, which was supposed to be private. But Vopper was protected by the First Amendment Right, Freedom of Speech because he was not apart of the illegal intercepting of the phone call, so he was protected by the First Amendment.

nick said...

I learned that if a newspaper prints an article criticizing a public official and the official claims its libel, the prosecution has to prove actual malice in the article.