1 ST AMENDMENT; FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS ELIZABETH MANWILL MIA MAY RAMI KHALAF MATT MARTY

MILLER V. CALIFORNIA JANUARY 19, 1972

MAIN POINTS Miller conducted mass mailing campaign of advertising the sale of “adult” material (porn) Miller was convicted of violating California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material Unwilling recipients of Miller’s brochures complained to police initiating legal proceedings Miller’s attorney argued this case fell under the First Amendment’s freedom of expression

QUESTION What was the courts decision and why?

OUTCOME 5-4 decision the court held the obscene material does not fall under First Amendment Protection Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth V. United States and Memoirs V. Massachusetts Average person applying contemporary community standards would fine work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law Whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

TEXAS V. JOHNSON NUMBER MARCH 20, 1989

MAIN POINTS Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall Argued a means of protest against Reagan administration policies Johnson was tried and convicted under Texas law outlawing flag desecration Sentenced one year in jail and $2,000 fine Texas court of Criminal appeals reversed the conviction Case was then taken to the Supreme Court

QUESTION What was the courts decision and why?

OUTCOME 5-4 decision court held that Johnsons burning of the flag was protected under the first amendment Court found his actions fell into category of expressive conduct and a distinctively political nature

NEW YORK TIMES V. US 1873 JUNE 25, 1971

MAIN POINTS Nixon admin trying to prevent New York Times and Washington post from publishing classified material belonging to Defense Department Study regarding history of US activity in Vietnam Nixon argued Prior Restraint Court held that gov did not overcome the prior restraint of the press

QUESTION What was the courts decision and why?

OUTCOME 6-3 decision argued that the vague word “security” should not be used to abrogate the laws embodied in the first amendment. Agreed that the publication would not cause any immediate or direct danger safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified

NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY V. SULLIVAN 39 JANUARY 5,1964

MAIN POINTS Full page add stating the arrest of MLK Junior was part of campaign to destroy King’s efforts to integrate public facilities and to promote blacks to vote Sullivan filed a libel action against the newspaper He stated that the allegations against Montgomery police defamed him personally Sullivan did not have proof that he was harmed due to this ad but the defense claimed that the evidence in the ad were not truthful He won a $500,000 judgement

QUESTION What was the courts decision and why?

OUTCOME 7-2 decision court held that the first amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones Only when the statements are created with mal intent are they not protected under the first amendment Under this new standard Sullivan's case collapsed

CITATIONS Miller v. California. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from Texas v. Johnson. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from New York Times Company v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 3, 2016, from New York Times Company v. Sullivan. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from