con law final - freedom of the press, prior restraint and due process

what cases relate to prior restraint?

near v minnesota
new york times co v US

near v ___

minnesota

___ v minnesota

near

new york times co v _____

US

__________ v US

new york times co

how many cases relate to freedom of the press, prior restraint and due process

4

what cases relate to freedom of the press, prior restraint and due process?

near v minnesota
new york times co v us
branzburg v hayes
globe newspapers co v superior court of the county of norfolk

(acronym)
cases relating to freedom of the press, prior restraint and due process

G B NY NM

G B NY NM (meaning)
then recite each case name in full before flipping over

great big new yorkers never miss
globe norfolk... branzburg... nyt.... near minn

near v minnesota
facts

- a local newspaper published several stories attempting to expose public officials for being "jewish gangsters"
- the journalists were found guilty of being a nuisance, and posting lascivious content, the publication was injucted and the journalists were told they are not allowed to publish any new content

near v minnesota
constitutional question

- was the minnesota law, that allowed the silencing of publications before posting, a violation of the 1st amendment right of freedom of speech?

near v minnesota
constitutional provision

1st amendment freedom of speech

near v minnesota
ruling

the court ruled that any attempts to restrain publications before they have been published is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. created the very precedence of prior restraint by ruling under very few circumstances, was it allowed.

near v minnesota
implications of ruling to prior restraint

- created the idea of prior restraint as precedent, but argued the very idea of it is unconstitutional
- created a vague framework of exceptional instances where prior restraint could be used: national security threats or incitations of violence

what was established in near v minnesota

prior restraint

new york times co v US
facts

- the US was embroiled in the Vietnam war, and American citizens were very unsatisfied
- a whistleblower sent classified information to the NYT that proved the government was lying about the status of the war, and they began publishing it
- the nixon administration attempted to place a gag order on the NYT stating it was a national security threat

new york times co v us
constitutional question

- was nixon's gag order unconstitutional?

new york times co vs us
constitutional provision

1st amendment freedom of the press (claimed right of NYT)

new york times co v us
ruling

- the court ruled that the gag order was in fact unconstitutional
- stating that there is an extremely high burden of proof threshold needed to be met in order to claim prior restraint is necessary
- also set the precedent that a national security threat is one that would put citizens/armed forces in immediate harms way if not stopped

new york times co v us
implications of ruling to prior restraint

- further defined prior restraint as something extremely hard to achieve
- defined the definition of a national security threat

branzburg v hayes
facts

-branzburg was a journalist who did a piece about drug use, and in that piece he anonymously interviewed many notorious drug dealers
- he was subpoenaed to stand witness in a criminal trial, where he would be asked to reveal his sources
- branzburg ignored the subpoena and was charged with contempt of court
- branzburg argued this was a violation of his right to freedom of press, as bearing witness and giving up his sources interfered with his journalistic integrity

branzburg v hayes
constitutional question

- does the legal duty to bear witness as a journalist interfere with the freedom of press and speech as guaranteed under the 1st amendment?

branzburg v hayes
constitutional provision

1st amendment
freedom of press
freedom of speech

branzburg v hayes
ruling

- the court ruled that it is not a violation of the first amendment to be sanctioned to bear witness, as the importance of public safety outweighs the possibility of negative career implications for a journalist
- also ruled that no one type of job would be excused from the civic duty of revealing confidential information during a trial

branzburg v hayes
implications of freedom of press, and prior restraint

- ruled that no use of prior restraint was being enforced, and that no journalist had to publish their sources prior to a subpoena, but instead only once summoned to bear witness
- narrowed the scope defined by freedom of the press

globe newspaper co v superior court of the county of norfolk
facts

Massachusetts law required trial courts to exclude matters of the press and public from certain cases involving sexual offenses and testimony of victims less than 18 years old.

globe newspaper co v superior court of the county of norfolk
constitutional question

did the mass law violate the qualified right of the press's access to criminal trials

globe newspaper co v superior court of the county of norfolk
constitutional provision

1st amendment freedom of the press

globe newspaper co v superior court of the county of norfolk
ruling

-court ruled that the law did violate the 1st amendment right of freedom of the press
- as prior precedent states, the only reason to exclude press in a criminal proceeding is if it is to serve a compelling state interest
- the potential protection of a minor's psychological well being does not outweigh the checking power afforded to press being present during proceedings.
- no empirical evidence to support that victims would be more or less likely to come out if press were present or not present

buzz word
near v minnesota

prior restraint exists

buzz word
new york times v us

national security breach, nixon, prior restraint

buzzword
branzburg v hayes

subpoena to witness

buzzword
globe newspaper co v superior court of the county of norfolk

closed trial, SA minor