Reference no: EM133321277

Assignment:

Part 1

Occasionally free speech and free press can collide with other constitutional rights: an individual's right to a fair trial can be impacted negatively, for example, by sensational pre-trial publicity, as in the Sam Shepherd murder trial in 1954 Cleveland ( the basis for the TV series and subsequent film The Fugitive) Or suppose, to take another example, a journalist refuses to divulge the identity some confidential sources even though they might be able to provide key testimony relevant to the outcome of a case, the difference between innocence or guilt. How would you balance these competing claims?

What is libel and what is slander? Both are very difficult, but not impossible to prove. Consider the Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), for example. Despite factual inaccuracies in an ad the Times had carried, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not guilty of libel. Why? What test had to met in order to demonstrate libel? What criteria would you establish if this isn't sufficient?

Part 2

College campuses have made news in recent years for what some critics have alleged are the increasingly restrictive codes that seek to safeguard student sensibilities with regard to "micro-aggressions" or "insensitive" remarks of one kind or another. These guidelines, it is argued, have made it increasingly difficult to discuss controversial but legitimate topics in classrooms or on campuses in general on the grounds that "offensive" subjects make the campus climate more "hostile."

This comes as a surprise to many others, who traditionally viewed educational institutions as the one place where free speech existed almost without limit. What do you think? Why are such top schools as the Ivy League institutions imposing limitations on what can be discussed in classrooms or on campus? Are these policies helpful, restrictive, or do they lie somewhere in between? How much controversy should be allowed in academic settings?