Summary Of Supreme Court Case: Minnesota V. US
Case: Near v. Minnesota
1931
U.S. Supreme Court
Parties Jay Near (Plaintiff) State of Minnesota (Defendant)
Facts: A publication, The Saturday Press, published an article alleging that City officials of Minneapolis were complaisant with gangsters who were engaged in illegal activities in the city. A Minnesota law was in effect which allowed the state courts to enjoin a publication which was engaged in a public nuisance. To be a nuisance the publisher had to be printing material that was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory. In 1927, a judge issued an order stopping the publication of the Saturday Press. The order also banned the sale of existing copies and of printing new additions. Near appealed the decision of the basis that the …show more content…
Minnesota law was censorship that violated his right of freedom of the press.
Statutory Provision: Minnesota State Law enacted in 1925
Constitutional Provision: The First Amendment/Freedom of the Press
Legal Question: Is it constitutional for a law to suppress publication of a paper unless the publisher can first show that the allegations to be printed are true.
Reasoning: Justice Hughes acknowledges that there are limits to freedom of the press, however, any constitutional restraints can only be imposed in very special and extreme circumstances such as obscenity or the obstruction of the war effort. In this case the Judge ruled that there were no such vital threats at risk. The judge ruled that the most important freedom of the press in the right to operate without prior censorship. Thus, the court ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional as it violated the right of freedom of the press.
Dissent/Concurrences: None
Doctrine: Prior censorship of the press violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. Exceptions exist in limited and extreme circumstances.
Case: New York Times vs. United States
1971
U.S. Supreme …show more content…
Court
Facts: The New York Times and the Washington Post were able to gain possession of a Defense Department confidential history and study of the United States’s involvement in the Vietnam War. (To be known as the Pentagon Papers). The papers began publishing articles based on the Pentagon Papers and the United States filed a motion asking the District Court to order the Times and the Post to cease publishing any more articles based on the Pentagon Papers. The United States argued that national security was at risk, and the Times countered that the Pentagon Papers were now historical in nature, and that an injunction would constitute prior restraint on the press. Due to the critical nature of the issues of the day, the case was passed on up to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Provision: None
Constitutional Provision: First Amendment/Freedom of the Press
Legal Question: Does the publication of the articles on the Pentagon Papers pose an unacceptable threat to the nation that would allow prior restraint on the press.
Reasoning: Justice Black (with Douglas Concurring) The bill or rights was enacted to ensure basic freedoms, one of which is the freedom of the press. One of the vital roles of the press is to keep the people informed about what the government is doing. In this case, the government attempted to censor the press under the guise of national security. Justice Black concludes that security of the country can best be preserved by a public well informed by the press.
Concurrences:
Justice Douglas (along with Justice Black): The government can not be allowed to censor the press and hide information it finds embarrassing. It is the duty of the press to keep the public informed so that they can make an informed decision as whether to support or oppose government actions.
Justice Brennan: In the past prior restraint on the press in only allowed in a time of war, and only then to preserve the ability to recruit an army, and to protect the movement and location of troops. Nothing in this case qualifies for the allowed
exceptions.
Justice Stewart (along with Justice White: In today’s society the President has almost unfettered powers in the areas of national defense and foreign affairs. Since the check and balance system does not adequately control the president, it is now up to the press to keep the public informed so they can check the president. While Stewart concedes the need for secrecy for national defense, it is his belief that the executive must show restraint, and only keep secret what is vital, not keep vital matters secret by hiding everything.
Justice White (along with Justice Stewart): Absent an act of congress which would allow prior restraint on the press in very extraordinary circumstances, the government must meet a very heavy burden prior to censoring the press. In this case the burden was not met.
Dissent: Justice Harlan (along with Justice Blackman): The executive branch also has powers and rights found in the constitution. The first amendment does not automatically trump the Executive Branches’s constitutional obligation to protect the nation.
Outcome: The New York Times and Washington Post prevailed and were allowed to continue publication of the articles on the war.
Doctrine: An attempt by the government to impose prior constrain on the press will be presumed to be unconstitutional.
Miller v. California
1973
United States Supreme Court
Facts: Marvin Miller, as part of an advertising campaign, sent out sexually explicit mailings in an effort to boost sales. As the mailings were unsolicited, some of the people receiving them found them unwelcome and offensive. The police were contacted and Miller was arrested for violating an obscenity law.
Statutory Provision: California State Criminal Obscenity Statute
Constitutional Provision: First Amendment/
Legal Question: What constitutes obscene material that is not protected by the First Amendment.
Reasoning: In the past, material was considered obscene if it was utterly without redeeming social values. The court rejected this standard while continuing to adhere to the principle that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court ruled that the States can regulate obscene material which meets the following criteria:
1. The average person applying contemporary community standards finds the material appeals to the prurient interests.
2. The work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct, and
3. The work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. *p. 351 of text.
The court vacated the conviction and remanded it to the lower court to apply the new standard.
Dissent: Justice Douglas: The court has tried to set standards on an issue which is completely subjective. Something which offends one person may not offend another.
Dissent: Juste Brennan: The conviction should have been vacated as the state law in question is clearly unconstitutional.
Outcome: The conviction was vacated and remanded for th lower court to apply the new standard of what constitutes obscenity.
Doctrine: States can regulate obscene materials, as such materials are not protected by the constitution, provided that obscenity in the statute is defined by using the appropriate community standards.
Reno v. ACLU
1997
United States Supreme Court
Facts: The ACLU attacked the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA attempted to protect children from being exposed to indecent and offensive material available through the Internet. The ACLU attacked 2 parts of the CDA. The first part criminalized indecent or obscene communications between adults and minors even if the minor sougth out the communication. The second part of the act in dispute probated offensive messages which were available to someone under the age of 18. A split 3 judge panel at the district court ruled the law was unconstitutionally vague.
Statutory Provision: Communications Decency Act
Constitutional Provisions: First Amendment/Freedom of Speech.
Legal Question: Is the CDA so vague that it constitutes a unconstitutional burden on free speech.
Reasoning: The Internet is a new medium that is unique. It is not broadcast like television or radio, but in essence is invited into the home by the user. The government seeks to protect minors from indecent and offensive material without adequately defining the terms. This uncertainty would act to chill free speech. While the government argues that the standard set in Miller v. California is applicable, the Court disagreed as Miller requires the use on an state standard, while the Act in question is to be applied nation wide. The Act in question is a threat to free speech, especially in light of the fact that a less vague statue could have been written and enacted. Thus, the CDA is too broad and vague and its negative effect on freedom of expression outweighs its unknown possible benefits.
Concurring in part/Dissenting in part Judge O’conner: With the current state of the Internet it is not possible to divide it into 2 separate zones, one for adults and one for children. The attempt to regulate children’s access to he Internet also restricts adult’s access, thus the justice agrees that the CDA’s prohibition of patently offensive display is unconstitutional. However, Justice O’Connor, dissented concerning the Act’s ban on indecent communication between adults and minors.
Doctrine Standards: An attempt to regulate and control unprotected free speech can not unreasonably infringe upon protected speech, especially if that burden could be lessened by more specific legislation.
New York Times v. Sullivan
1964
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: The New York Times ran an ad seeking funds for the civil rights movement. The ad recounted a demonstration and criticized the actions of the Montgomery Alabama Police Department and their commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan sued the paper for libel. Citing minor inconsistences in the ad concerning minor details, the judge ruled that the ad was false and was thus unprotected speech. The jury was given these instructions and they ruled against the Times and Sullivan was awarded a $500,000. settlement. The judgement was upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court. The Times appealed arguing that the standard for libel used by the court violated their rights of freedom of the press.
Statutory Provision: Libel Laws of State of Alabama
Constitutional provision: First Amendment Freedom of the Press
Legal Question: What limits apply to a public official seeking damages for libel against the press.
Reasoning: The constitution and a free society encourage debate and criticism of government and government officials. The fact that printed remarks hurt an officials reputation or that some of the remarks are inaccurate do not serve to strip the press of their freedom of expression. Before a public official can recover an award of libel, they must prove actual malice, defined by the Court (*page 333) as made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. In the specific case before the court, the facts do not support a finding of actual malice.
Concurring Opinion: Justice Black joined by Justice Douglas: The justices concurred with the result, but go further advocating a position that the State be prohibited from awarding a libel damages to a public official who has been criticized for his public conduct.
Outcome: The New York Times Won. The verdict was overturned and the case remanded. The lower Court was instructed to apply the new standard, and Supreme Court made it clear that the Times did not commit libel in this case.
Doctrine: To protect the press from libel, a public official must not only prove that a defamatory falsehood was printed, he must also prove the statement was the result of actual malice.
1931
U.S. Supreme Court
Parties Jay Near (Plaintiff) State of Minnesota (Defendant)
Facts: A publication, The Saturday Press, published an article alleging that City officials of Minneapolis were complaisant with gangsters who were engaged in illegal activities in the city. A Minnesota law was in effect which allowed the state courts to enjoin a publication which was engaged in a public nuisance. To be a nuisance the publisher had to be printing material that was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory. In 1927, a judge issued an order stopping the publication of the Saturday Press. The order also banned the sale of existing copies and of printing new additions. Near appealed the decision of the basis that the …show more content…
Minnesota law was censorship that violated his right of freedom of the press.
Statutory Provision: Minnesota State Law enacted in 1925
Constitutional Provision: The First Amendment/Freedom of the Press
Legal Question: Is it constitutional for a law to suppress publication of a paper unless the publisher can first show that the allegations to be printed are true.
Reasoning: Justice Hughes acknowledges that there are limits to freedom of the press, however, any constitutional restraints can only be imposed in very special and extreme circumstances such as obscenity or the obstruction of the war effort. In this case the Judge ruled that there were no such vital threats at risk. The judge ruled that the most important freedom of the press in the right to operate without prior censorship. Thus, the court ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional as it violated the right of freedom of the press.
Dissent/Concurrences: None
Doctrine: Prior censorship of the press violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. Exceptions exist in limited and extreme circumstances.
Case: New York Times vs. United States
1971
U.S. Supreme …show more content…
Court
Facts: The New York Times and the Washington Post were able to gain possession of a Defense Department confidential history and study of the United States’s involvement in the Vietnam War. (To be known as the Pentagon Papers). The papers began publishing articles based on the Pentagon Papers and the United States filed a motion asking the District Court to order the Times and the Post to cease publishing any more articles based on the Pentagon Papers. The United States argued that national security was at risk, and the Times countered that the Pentagon Papers were now historical in nature, and that an injunction would constitute prior restraint on the press. Due to the critical nature of the issues of the day, the case was passed on up to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Provision: None
Constitutional Provision: First Amendment/Freedom of the Press
Legal Question: Does the publication of the articles on the Pentagon Papers pose an unacceptable threat to the nation that would allow prior restraint on the press.
Reasoning: Justice Black (with Douglas Concurring) The bill or rights was enacted to ensure basic freedoms, one of which is the freedom of the press. One of the vital roles of the press is to keep the people informed about what the government is doing. In this case, the government attempted to censor the press under the guise of national security. Justice Black concludes that security of the country can best be preserved by a public well informed by the press.
Concurrences:
Justice Douglas (along with Justice Black): The government can not be allowed to censor the press and hide information it finds embarrassing. It is the duty of the press to keep the public informed so that they can make an informed decision as whether to support or oppose government actions.
Justice Brennan: In the past prior restraint on the press in only allowed in a time of war, and only then to preserve the ability to recruit an army, and to protect the movement and location of troops. Nothing in this case qualifies for the allowed
exceptions.
Justice Stewart (along with Justice White: In today’s society the President has almost unfettered powers in the areas of national defense and foreign affairs. Since the check and balance system does not adequately control the president, it is now up to the press to keep the public informed so they can check the president. While Stewart concedes the need for secrecy for national defense, it is his belief that the executive must show restraint, and only keep secret what is vital, not keep vital matters secret by hiding everything.
Justice White (along with Justice Stewart): Absent an act of congress which would allow prior restraint on the press in very extraordinary circumstances, the government must meet a very heavy burden prior to censoring the press. In this case the burden was not met.
Dissent: Justice Harlan (along with Justice Blackman): The executive branch also has powers and rights found in the constitution. The first amendment does not automatically trump the Executive Branches’s constitutional obligation to protect the nation.
Outcome: The New York Times and Washington Post prevailed and were allowed to continue publication of the articles on the war.
Doctrine: An attempt by the government to impose prior constrain on the press will be presumed to be unconstitutional.
Miller v. California
1973
United States Supreme Court
Facts: Marvin Miller, as part of an advertising campaign, sent out sexually explicit mailings in an effort to boost sales. As the mailings were unsolicited, some of the people receiving them found them unwelcome and offensive. The police were contacted and Miller was arrested for violating an obscenity law.
Statutory Provision: California State Criminal Obscenity Statute
Constitutional Provision: First Amendment/
Legal Question: What constitutes obscene material that is not protected by the First Amendment.
Reasoning: In the past, material was considered obscene if it was utterly without redeeming social values. The court rejected this standard while continuing to adhere to the principle that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court ruled that the States can regulate obscene material which meets the following criteria:
1. The average person applying contemporary community standards finds the material appeals to the prurient interests.
2. The work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct, and
3. The work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. *p. 351 of text.
The court vacated the conviction and remanded it to the lower court to apply the new standard.
Dissent: Justice Douglas: The court has tried to set standards on an issue which is completely subjective. Something which offends one person may not offend another.
Dissent: Juste Brennan: The conviction should have been vacated as the state law in question is clearly unconstitutional.
Outcome: The conviction was vacated and remanded for th lower court to apply the new standard of what constitutes obscenity.
Doctrine: States can regulate obscene materials, as such materials are not protected by the constitution, provided that obscenity in the statute is defined by using the appropriate community standards.
Reno v. ACLU
1997
United States Supreme Court
Facts: The ACLU attacked the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA attempted to protect children from being exposed to indecent and offensive material available through the Internet. The ACLU attacked 2 parts of the CDA. The first part criminalized indecent or obscene communications between adults and minors even if the minor sougth out the communication. The second part of the act in dispute probated offensive messages which were available to someone under the age of 18. A split 3 judge panel at the district court ruled the law was unconstitutionally vague.
Statutory Provision: Communications Decency Act
Constitutional Provisions: First Amendment/Freedom of Speech.
Legal Question: Is the CDA so vague that it constitutes a unconstitutional burden on free speech.
Reasoning: The Internet is a new medium that is unique. It is not broadcast like television or radio, but in essence is invited into the home by the user. The government seeks to protect minors from indecent and offensive material without adequately defining the terms. This uncertainty would act to chill free speech. While the government argues that the standard set in Miller v. California is applicable, the Court disagreed as Miller requires the use on an state standard, while the Act in question is to be applied nation wide. The Act in question is a threat to free speech, especially in light of the fact that a less vague statue could have been written and enacted. Thus, the CDA is too broad and vague and its negative effect on freedom of expression outweighs its unknown possible benefits.
Concurring in part/Dissenting in part Judge O’conner: With the current state of the Internet it is not possible to divide it into 2 separate zones, one for adults and one for children. The attempt to regulate children’s access to he Internet also restricts adult’s access, thus the justice agrees that the CDA’s prohibition of patently offensive display is unconstitutional. However, Justice O’Connor, dissented concerning the Act’s ban on indecent communication between adults and minors.
Doctrine Standards: An attempt to regulate and control unprotected free speech can not unreasonably infringe upon protected speech, especially if that burden could be lessened by more specific legislation.
New York Times v. Sullivan
1964
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: The New York Times ran an ad seeking funds for the civil rights movement. The ad recounted a demonstration and criticized the actions of the Montgomery Alabama Police Department and their commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan sued the paper for libel. Citing minor inconsistences in the ad concerning minor details, the judge ruled that the ad was false and was thus unprotected speech. The jury was given these instructions and they ruled against the Times and Sullivan was awarded a $500,000. settlement. The judgement was upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court. The Times appealed arguing that the standard for libel used by the court violated their rights of freedom of the press.
Statutory Provision: Libel Laws of State of Alabama
Constitutional provision: First Amendment Freedom of the Press
Legal Question: What limits apply to a public official seeking damages for libel against the press.
Reasoning: The constitution and a free society encourage debate and criticism of government and government officials. The fact that printed remarks hurt an officials reputation or that some of the remarks are inaccurate do not serve to strip the press of their freedom of expression. Before a public official can recover an award of libel, they must prove actual malice, defined by the Court (*page 333) as made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. In the specific case before the court, the facts do not support a finding of actual malice.
Concurring Opinion: Justice Black joined by Justice Douglas: The justices concurred with the result, but go further advocating a position that the State be prohibited from awarding a libel damages to a public official who has been criticized for his public conduct.
Outcome: The New York Times Won. The verdict was overturned and the case remanded. The lower Court was instructed to apply the new standard, and Supreme Court made it clear that the Times did not commit libel in this case.
Doctrine: To protect the press from libel, a public official must not only prove that a defamatory falsehood was printed, he must also prove the statement was the result of actual malice.