Power of the Media By Fabeeha and Lubaba Ahmed

Schenck vs. United States

United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Established the "clear and present danger" test, which lasted till The limitation to freedom of speech was further eased in 1969, with the establishment of the "Imminent lawless action" test by the Supreme Court. Significance.

What was it? Charles Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America. He was responsible for printing, distributing, and mailing to prospective military draftees during World War I. His mailing included 15,000 leaflets that opposing the draft. They said things like "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain,". Schenck was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of Schenck appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the court decision violated his First Amendment rights.

The Court's Decision. The court unanimously decided Schenck's criminal accusation was constitutional. The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words the circumstances of wartime permited greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime. Charles Schenck consequently spent six months in prison.

Tinker vs. Des Moines

In 1965, John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth, and a friend were sent home from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The school had established a policy permitting students to wear several political symbols, but had excluded the wearing of armbands protesting the Vietnam War. Their fathers sued, but the District Court ruled that the school had not violated the Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, and the Tinkers appealed to the Supreme Court. Background.

The Court's Decision. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Justice Abe Fortas wrote for the majority. He first emphasized that students have First Amendment rights: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While schools certainly have the right to establish rules relating to “the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style,…[or] aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations,” this case does not involve any of those issues. “The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, …with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.”

The Court's Decision: Continued. Justice Hugo Black dissented. He pointed out that the case involved a small number of students who refused to obey the instructions of school officials, and argued that allowing this behavior would have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole.

Zenger Case Lubaba and Fabeeha

Where and when did the Zenger case take place? New York City on August 2, 1732 New British governor arrives to rule the colony

Those involved: WILLIAM COSBY, the greedy and arrogant British governor who antagonizes many colonists. JOHN PETER ZENGER, printer who publishes the New-York Weekly Journal. ANDREW HAMILTON, Philadelphia lawyer hired by the opponents of Governor Cosby to represent Zenger

The New-York Weekly Journal Each week, the Journal highlights Governor Cosby’s misdeeds and abuse of power. None of the writers sign their real names to the essays and editorials The only name that appears in every issue: Zenger’s

November 17, 1734 Governor Cosby has Zenger arrested and imprisoned for printing “false, malicious, seditious, and scandalous” libels that undermine the governor’s authority.

August 4, 1735 Zenger brought to trial Andrew Hamilton that Zenger should not be found guilty of seditious libel because the Journal’s criticisms of Cosby’s government were true

Hamilton’s Spellbinding Speech “The question before the Court and you gentlemen of the jury...is not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone...No! It may in its consequence affect every freeman that lives under a British government on the main of America. It is the best cause. It is the cause of liberty.”

Triumph 12 jurors agreed Zenger found NOT guilty

So in the scheme of IB Film- related things, why is something dating from the pre-Revolutionary period even important?

In effect… The significance of the Zenger trial lies in its proposal that truth should be given voice and not punished Foundations for freedom of the press and speech of modern day America

A half-century after the Zenger trial, as members of the First Congress debated the proposed Bill of Rights, one of the Constitution's principal drafters and great-grandson of Lewis Morris, Gouvernor Morris, would write of the Zenger case: "The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America."