Reference no: EM133348092
Question 1. What is "prior restraint," which at the time that the First Amendment was ratified was the traditional understanding of freedom of the press, carried over from English common law. Bear in mind that the much-despised Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were consistent with this approach to "liberty of printing." Do you think, looking back, that it is sufficient, or are additional safeguards necessary? From this perspective, consider the Pentagon Papers case included in the list of cases attached to this section. The majority in this case, while conceding that significant, immediate harm might result were the New York Times to proceed with publication of the stolen Defense Department it documents it had obtained from Daniel Ellsberg, a former DoD top security employee. What balance, if any would you strike here?
SPACE ANSWER FOR NEXT BULLET PLEASE
Question 2. Examine the cases of "symbolic speech," in the 1968 instance of US v. O'Brien and Texas v. Johnson, a 1989 case (listed on the attached supplementary sheet). In the first instance, the Supreme Court rejected the ideas of "symbolic speech," as in burning a draft card, but upheld it in the 1989 Texas case involving a flag-desecration case in Texas. Which of these cases do you find more consistent with the First Amendment? Or would you have come to a different conclusion altogether?
SPACE ANSWER FOR NEXT BULLET PLESSE
Question 3. Are freedom of speech and press absolute? During the 1950's and early 1960's, Justice Hugo Black argued that they were, and held that absolutely no sanctions of any kind could ever be imposed in any circumstances, for any reason. What do you think? Do you endorse this position, or would you draw some boundaries?