CIVIL LIBERTIES

Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government
cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process.

THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

1/‘Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by
any means.’

2/Speech can be oral or written. It can also be symbolic such as burning the United States’ flag or
even funding political parties or campaigns.

3/The constitutionally protected right of the freedom of expression has become with time one of
the most well protected right in the US.

4/Indeed, one of the founding principles of the United States that Americans cherish is the right to
freedom of speech. Enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, freedom of speech
grants all Americans the liberty to criticize the government and speak their minds without fear of
being censored or persecuted.

5/Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds
including those that may be deeply offensive.

6/You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and
freedom of expression can be restricted.

7/Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. And restrictions can
also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others.

A FREE PRESS
— Prior Restraint —

Why is the near case considered a major one ?

The Near case is a major one as the Supreme Court allowed the publication of an article
although it was racist and violent.

Because the article was no considered a major threat and did not jeopardize the cohesion
of the country.

Freedom of the press was later reaffirmed with the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

Page 1 sur 6
NEAR V. MINNESOTA (1931)

1/The Supreme Court has never accepted complete freedom of the press, it has repeatedly struck
down laws imposing a prior restraint on newspapers.

2/Prior restraint means blocking a publication from reaching the public. The first Amendment has
stood as a string check against would-be censors.

3/The first significant prior restraint case, Near v. Minnesota illustrates the point.

4/At issue in Near was a state statue that provided for the banning of « malicious, scandalous and
defamatory » newspapers or periodicals.

5/This case helped the Supreme Court define freedom of the press and the concept of prior
restraint.

6/The law said that anyone who published a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory"
newspaper article was a nuisance and could be stopped from publishing such information.

7/This case helped establish the principle that the government can't censor or prohibit a
publication in advance, with a few exceptions, even though the communication might be actionable in a
future proceeding.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that
found that prior restraints on publication violate freedom of the press as protected under the First
Amendment, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence.
The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous"
newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through
the Fourteenth Amendment). Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's
"first great press case ».

TIMES V. UNITED STATES (1971)

1/A more serious challenge to freedom of the press arose in New York Times vs. United States
1971, also know as the Pentagon Papers case.

2/In which the Court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the
Pentagon Papers.

3/Both the New York Times and the Washington Post published portions of classified report on
the history of American involvement in Vietnam.

4/Citing a breach of national security, the government sought an order to prevent further
publication of the materials by the two newspapers.

5/A divided Court ( 6 to 3 ) ruled that the newspapers could continue publishing the report
because the government has not justified the need for prior restraint.

Still, only Justices Black and William Douglas took the position that the government could never restrain a
publication. The four others in the majority assumed that in extreme cases national security could justify an
injunction, thus raising the possibility of a constitutional exercise of prior restraint.

6/The great leeway granted to the press by the Court in question of prior restraint does not mean
that the press is free to do as it pleases without regard to consequences.

7/The press can be punished after publication. Two forms of expression libel and obscenity, are
particularly open to punishment 


Page 2 sur 6
WHAT WAS HELD AND WHY ?

The Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. In the judgment, the Court cited a
prevailing precedent, noting: “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this
Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.“ In other words, the
Court would not be favorably disposed to stifling the press on the order of the government.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT ? WHY ? (liberté de la presse)

1/ Impact. The Pentagon Papers revealed that the United States had expanded its war with the
bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none
of which had been reported by the American media.

2/ The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post
newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government
censorship or punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect
the right of The New York Times to print the materials.

In this ruling, the Court established a “heavy presumption against prior restraint,” even in cases
involving national security. This means that the Court is very likely to find cases of government
censorship unconstitutional.

NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES WAS A MAJOR VICTORY FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN 1964

1/The plaintiff, Sullivan sued the Defendant, the NYT, for printing an advertisement about the civil
rights movement in the south that defamed the plaintiff.

2/The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that prohibits a public official from
recovering damages for a defamatory leasehold relating to his official conduct unless he proves
that the statement was made with actual malice.

—> This is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or
not.

—> The issue in this case was : does a public official have to prove “actual malice” before he can
recover damages in a defamation action against persons criticizing their official conduct? YES.

3/This case was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the
freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability
of American public officials to sue for defamation.

4/The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, ruled in favor of the New York Times. In order to
prove libel, a “public official” must show that the newspaper acted “with 'actual malice'–that is,
with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard” for truth.

THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT IT SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT.

The supreme Court argued that :

- The State was not made with malice
- The defendant did not necessarily show that the information was false
- Freedom of the press implies that some statements are likely to be made
- Nothing proved that the article was against the plaintiff

Watergate CASE ? 

Page 3 sur 6
THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAW
CONCERNING : SLANDER / LIBEL /
OBSCENITY
Libel is the use of print or pictures to harm someone’s reputation.

Slander is injury by spoken word.

Traditionally, these actions have been outside First Amendment protection, therefore, they have
been punishable by criminal law and subject to civil prosecution for damages.

Concerning obscenity, obscenity has never been considered deserving of First Amendment
protection.

1/THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAW

— Before 1964, the claimant only needed to prove that the statement was false in order to
be granted damages.

— In 1964, in the Sullivan case, the court ruled that the claimant also needed to prove this
intention to and be harmful.

— 1976, the court restricted the notion of public figures.

2/CONCERNING THE OBSCENITY

— Obscenity has always stressed out to be difficult in to define.

— First, it was not protected by the 1st amendment, it was considered «  without  »
redefining social value in the standard casses.

— Today the world should present a « literary political or artistic value » to be protected by
the 1st amendment.

— Moreover, the standards fall into the jurisdiction of each state that the laws differ from a
state to another one.

Page 4 sur 6
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE US
GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESS
ARTICLE CONCERNING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE MEDIA

—> What is the journalist view on the protection of freedom of the press in the US ?

Most people take for granted the fact that the press is protected by the first amendment
but such a protection turns out to be limited.

According to the journalist the press depends on other safeguard which are not wearily legal the
include :

- the financial situation of the press, the press can no longer afford to start legal actions because
it is not s powerful as it used to be
- the public perception and attitude : the public is, more critical and no longer trusts the press
- the stance of judges :
- the relationship between the white house and journalists the relationship between the white
house and the media has become as the president no longer allows journalist to work properly
their access at the White house

The freedom of the press is one of the most important principles protected by the
Constitution.

Page 5 sur 6
OPINION
By Charles M. Blow

1/The media is not the enemy of the people. The enemy of the people is ignorance —
obliviousness to truth, ignoring it or having incredulity about it.

2/There is no way to have a functioning democracy without a thriving press.

3/One of the great missions of the press is to hold power accountable by revealing what those in
power would rather hide. Corruption depends on concealment. Accountability hinges on
disclosure.

4/The founders of this country knew that. I also think Donald Trump knows that and that he is
purposely attempting to prune that function.

5/Expression, and the right to publish it, is a human right. And yet, President Trump continues to
disregard this.

________________

6/A free and fearless press is the greatest ally to a free and prosperous people.

7/As such, his repeated attacks on the press — including on individual journalists — amounts to a
maximum breach of protocols, and I would say constitutional responsibility, as it represents one of
the many measurable casualties of this presidency.

8/A Quinnipiac University poll last week found that Republicans say 49 to 36 percent “that the
news media is the enemy of the people. Every other listed party, gender, education, age and racial
group says the media is an important part of democracy.”

______________

9/The weaker the media, the strong the demagogue. The road to authoritarianism winds its way
through darkness.

10/And, Trump’s tactic here is to both overwhelm and degrade. He wants to so blur the line
between truth and lies that he’s exhausted our stamina for discernment.

11/To Trump, the press is a tool and a weapon, to be used and deployed in the promotion of
brand, and therefore the acquisition of money and power.

Page 6 sur 6