Speech and National Security - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Speech and National Security

Stephanie Burrell and Katie Armstrong

First Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

First Amendment

Original Intent:

The Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual freedoms that were not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. The first amendment was specifically included by Madison so citizens could criticize the government without fear of imprisonment.

First Amendment

Current Interpretation:

Today, there is more controversy over the interpretation of the First Amendment, specifically the portion concerning free speech. The controversy stems from the definition of free speech, and the debate between freedom and safety/national security. Ex: You cannot yell fire in a public place when there is not one.

New York Times vs. United States (1971)

Facts:

Daniel Ellsberg, a government employee, leaked classified information regarding US involvement in the Vietnam War (The Pentagon Papers) to the

New York Times.

Nixon attempted to prevent the

New York Times

and

Washington Post

from publishing this information claiming that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security

New York Times vs. United States (1971)

Issue

:

Can the executive branch block the printing of classified government information in an effort to protect national security without violating the First Amendment’s free speech/press clause?

Holding:

The court ruled 6:3 in favor of

New York Times.

New York Times

vs. United States (1971)

Reasoning:

The court ruled that because the issue did not present any immediate danger to the government or the public, but sought only to educate American citizens about the Vietnam War, Nixon did not have the right to enforce prior restraint. They decided that in doing so he would violate the reporters First Amendment rights.

New York Times vs. United States (1971)

Interpretation:

Because of this case, the court established a “heavy presumption against prior restraint”; therefore, the court is likely to find cases involving government censorship unconstitutional.

Many historians also cite the release of the Pentagon Papers as an event which helped end the Vietnam War.

New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964)

Facts:

During the 1960’s, an ad was printed in the

New York Times

which contained false information about Civil Rights opponents and the Alabama police department.

Sullivan, the city Public Safety Commissioner, sued the

New York Times

for libel, claiming that the article damaged his reputation (as he was in change of the police department).

At the time, Alabama’s libel law stated: any false speech which degrades a person’s reputation is defamatory.

New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964)

Issue

: Did Alabama’s libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment’s freedom of speech?

Holding:

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the

New York Times.

New York Times vs. Sullivan

(1964)

Reasoning:

The court stated the

New York Times

did not know that the ad contained inaccuracies, and therefore could not be held liable for defamation since they had not acted maliciously against Sullivan. The court also ruled that a public official can sue for false statements made with actual malice (if the papers know the information they are publishing is false).

New York Times vs. Sullivan

(1964)

Interpretation:

New York Times vs. Sullivan established the actual-malice standard that has to be met before press statements can be considered libel.

This case also allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in southern states, and played a key role in expanding the rights of free speech and press

Schenck vs. United States (1919)

Facts

During WW1, secretary for the US Socialist Party, Charles Schenck, distributed pamphlets encouraging men to resist the draft because he believed it violated the 13th Amendment

He was arrested for violating the Espionage Act (1917) and sentenced to 30 years in prison

Schenck vs. United States (1919)

Issue:

Does the government’s prosecution and punishment for expressing opposition to the military draft during wartime violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause?

Holding:

The court voted unanimously in favor of the United States.

Schenck vs.

United States (1919)

Reasoning:

The Supreme Court decided the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment. The court stated that wartime circumstances changed the rules related to the rights of free speech. They also ruled that there can be limitations to free speech rights if that speech presents a clear and present danger.

Schenck vs United States (1919)

Interpretation:

This court case limited the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech during times of war by declaring the Espionage Act constitutional (which would later lead to the imprisonment of dozens of people including Daniel Ellsberg and Eugene V. Debs)

It also created the clear and present danger test

Multimedia Items

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNpmC8iuVTA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrXlY6gzTTM