This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (3/3 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/3 playlist item notes are private)
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from legislating various laws. These include, but not limited to: impeding the exercise of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, restricting the right to peacefully assemble, or prohibiting the right to petition for a governmental redress of grievances.
Among one of ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was put forth on December 15, 1791. It’s original interpretation was far more narrow than today, making First Amendment issues among the most complicated within the American judicial system. One of the most prominent First Amendment case was Near v. Minnesota, 238 U.S. 697 (1931) where the midwestern state filed a permanent injunction, or gag law, against a man for publishing an Anti-semitic newspaper that was considered a “public nuisance.” The defendant argued that this violated his First Amendment right of free speech and press. In the end, the Constitution favored Near, saying that censorship is almost always unconstitutional unless the information threatens national security.
Other cases such as Cohen v. California, where a man was charged for disturbing the peace for wearing a “Fuck the Draft” jacket, or Snyder v. Phelps, when the Westboro Baptist Church protested a U.S. soldier’s funeral, illustrates that the First Amendment is ever evolving in its interpretation, but nonetheless is at the base of all communications law.
The first amendment also clearly applies to artistic expression, even film, regardless of its indirect outcomes. In Byers v. Edmondson, plaintiffs suing on behalf of the victims of violent crimes included Oliver Stone as a defendant because his film Natural Born Killers may have inspired the real life crime. Although the case was considered a valid one, it was decided that because there was no proof that Stone intended to incite violence, his film was protected speech.
SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution and individual case analyses summaries.
|3.1||Show/Hide More||Snyder v. Phelps by Roxanne Cecil|
|3.2||Show/Hide More||Near v. Minnesota Analysis by Jacob Atkins|
|3.2.2||Show/Hide More||Near v. Minnesota Video Summary|
This YouTube video showcases an array of primary source documents dating back to the era of Near v. Minnesota. Since the constitutional battle stemmed from accusations of statewide corruption, this short documentary provides context regarding The Saturday Press’ portrayal of Minneapolis as a city “where the people were drunk, satisfied, and left the law enforcement and running of the city to crock politicians and strong-armed gangsters.” For example, police officers are seen standing on the top of motorcycles, in addition to a person gunned down in a vehicle. Although these photos illustrate Near’s and Guilford’s allegations, the video also introduces the style of “Yellow Journalism” that the duo was adhering to, for both of them published exaggerated or sensationalized articles to instigate societal reforms.
|3.3||Show/Hide More||Byers v. Edmonson Analysis by Ford Fischer|
|3.3.2||Show/Hide More||"Natural Born Copycats" YouTube Video|
|3.4||Show/Hide More||Cohen v. California by Lindsay Maizland|
April 09, 2016
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.