Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Sir, we would argue that while the government interest in protecting national security is an important interest, the Roth case does not justify the government encroachment on our Freedom of the press. The Roth case provides that the government can encroach on the freedom of the press only if it is attempting to protect other rights from being infringed on. In our case, Mr. President, none of our rights are at risk. The ban on media coverage of the War is not in response to a perceived loss of rights by the people, but based on a perceived threat to the country. The Roth case does not make provision for infringement on our rights under these circumstances and therefore the infringement is not justified.
Even though the Roth case was overruled by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) regarding the issue of whether obscenity is protected under the First Amendment, the reasoning behind the Miller case still supports our position. The Miller Court held that, "in the area of freedom of speech and press the courts must always remain sensitive to any infringement on genuinely serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific expression." Therefore, while the Court excluded obscenity as protected speech, the Court at the same time established a...
It is our position that because the press coverage of the War maintains literary and political expression, it should remain protected by the First Amendment.
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F. 3d 681 (6th Cir. 2002), that "The First Amendment, through a free press, protects the people's right to know that their government acts fairly, lawfully, and accurately in deportation proceedings. When government begins closing doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation. The Framers of the First Amendment "did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us."
While the court in Detroit Free Press examined the issue of whether press coverage should be permitted in a deportation hearing, the broader issue of limitation of the press with regarding what the people are permitted to learn or know applies in our case.
For example, the court ruled in Detroit Free Press that the press should be permitted into the deportation hearings because the people have a right to know what is going on. In our case, we
First Amendment freedom of speech and press The Constitution of the United States has been considered to be one of the most liberal fundamental laws of the democratic institutions. It represents he cornerstone of the modern governance and of the modern state. However, the Constitution as it stands today has been subject to several amendments throughout history as reactions to the challenges faced by the state in time. In this
First Amendment In 1787 our forefathers ratified the constitution of the United States of America, which contains the most important document to any American citizen, the Bill of Rights (Magarian, 2012). The First Amendment to the United Sates Constitution is known to be part of the nation's Bill of Rights. The first amendment is maybe the most vital section of the United States Constitution for the reason that the amendment guarantees the people
first amendment of the Constitution addresses both freedoms of speech and religion (Constitution Bill of Rights). Within these two broad themes, there are various clauses (First Amendment Online). The First Amendment restricts government from passing laws aimed against free excersise of any religion, and also restricts the government from "establishing" or favoring a particular religion (First Amendment Cyber Tribune). In addition to allowing freedom of speech, the amendment also
First Amendment Applications Applications of the First Amendment The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the American people against laws made by Congress that would restrict the right to free speech or a free press, however, with the advancement of technology Americans have created new mediums of communication and the rights guaranteed in the Constitution have had to be applied to these new mediums. As a result, the Supreme Court has
It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Congress has enacted sufficient regulation on business communication. Given that businesses are comprised of individuals who are subject to First Amendment protection, for the government to treat business communication as distinct from personal communication, however noble the idea in spirit, creates a conflict that is not easily reconciled. If anything, reconciliation of this conflict will see a further reduction on the limits
First Amendment rights are not absolute, particularly in regards to advertising. For example, there has been a great deal of pressure to regulate advertising directed at children that promotes unhealthy junk food. "There is a legal test for judging whether commercial speech qualifies for protection under the First Amendment. Called the Central Hudson test, it says that such speech must be truthful and not 'actually or inherently misleading'" and it