Reflection Of The First Amendment

1781 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Capital punishment in america

In 1971 The administration of Nixon Tried to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing The Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam war. The Supreme court agreed with several other courts that had previously ruled on the issue, saying simply “We agree.” Shortly after the decision the newspapers resumed printing in order to finish the story about the leaked government documents. The Times released interpretive articles about the documents as well as the scripts of the documents themselves. Since they were classified government documents about conduct during wartime, the administration tried to use a form of prior restraint to stop the articles from being published, however the Supreme Court decision put …show more content…

The article discussed a dispute between The New York Times and The office of the Attorney general of The United States of America and the main question is Whether or not the government can exercise prior restraint on News Sources to stop them from publishing leaked classified documents, or whether this violates the First …show more content…

He was tried before a Jury for capital murder. The jury was instructed that if they could not convict on capital murder, they should them discuss first degree murder, after that, they could deliberate about manslaughter, then negligent homicide, and finally they could acquit. After several hours, the forewoman told the judge that the jury might not be able reach a verdict. She said that they had unanimously decided against capital and first degree murder, but were stuck 9-3 on on the charge of manslaughter. After a little more deliberation, the judge dismissed the jury and declared a mistrial. At this point, everyone agreed that Blueford could be retried for manslaughter and negligent homicide, but Blueford said that it would be a violation of his 5th amendment rights to not be charged with the same crime twice, since the jury had unanimously decide that he was innocent of capital murder and first degree murder. The opposing argument was that since the jury had been dismissed before issuing an official verdict, Blueford had not technically been acquitted, and therefore could be tried again on all the charges. The supreme court ruled 6-3 in favor of the prosecution. The majority, made up of Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Bryer, and Alito, agreed with the prosecution, saying that the forepersons statement was not an official verdict, and that because the deliberations carried on after the statement

Show More
Related

  • Foster V. Chatman Case Summary

    1049 Words  | 3 Pages

    In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.

    Read More

  • R V Lavallee Case Study

    734 Words  | 2 Pages

    R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly

    Read More

  • New York Times Co. versus United States: The Security of Secrets

    1965 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the case of the Pentagon Papers the necessities of individual freedoms supersedes the scope of the national government.

    Read More

  • Modern Interpretation of The First Amendment

    1663 Words  | 4 Pages

    The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.

    Read More

  • United States v. Nixon

    367 Words  | 1 Pages

    " 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

    Read More

  • Glenn Greenwald and Violations of American Privacy

    1156 Words  | 3 Pages

    Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.

    Read More

  • The Second Amendment: Why It Is Important to Our Country

    802 Words  | 2 Pages

    On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified effective by Congress. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America promised the states certain rights and freedoms which could not be infringed by the government. After all, the founding fathers knew from experience that men in their weakness were often tempted by power. They had become all too familiar with this when under the control of King George in England. Therefore, in order to protect the future people of their beautiful country, they promised certain liberties which could not be taken away. Every single one of these freedoms is important for the United States of America. However, the second amendment is especially important to our nation because it allows the people to protect their freedom and defend themselves and the common good against an overreaching government.

    Read More

  • Pentagon Papers

    376 Words  | 1 Pages

    Pentagon Papers: The Truth to War.      On June 31, 1971, President Nixon picked up a copy of his New York Times newspaper and found the 1st story on the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers was a hidden government document that had information on the Vietnam War. It was also a government study in Southeast Asia. Daniel Ellsberg knew that the government was hiding something.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men: Conflict in the Courtroom

    587 Words  | 2 Pages

    The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.

    Read More

  • Journalist or Terrorist: Julian Assange

    747 Words  | 2 Pages

    Similarly some information are kept from being publicized to the whole world by the government. Wikileaks has done otherwise: material that they disclosed to the world was sensitive material that belonged to the g...

    Read More

  • The Hypothetical Case Of Speluncean Explorers, By Lon Fuller

    1262 Words  | 3 Pages

    Keen affirms the four defendants are guilty. He criticizes Chief Justice Truepenny’s decision to formally encourage the executive to provide clemency. Keen asserts that it was not the judge’s role to direct the executive what to do, but to offer their opinion as private citizens. Our roles, as judge, is to apply the statute, which very undoubtedly applies on its own terms to this case and not whether these men’s actions were “right” or “good,” “wicked” or “good, ”or whether the statute is good or bad policy. A judge should not apply the concepts of morality, but the law of the land. Keen argues that it is wrong to assert that defendants were acting in self-defense since Whetmore had not threatened their lives. He insists upon “a separation between law and morality, holding that "the law" required a finding of guilty even though his own morality would lead to a different result” (D’Amato, 2010). He adds, “a hard decision is never a popular decision.” A hard decision in this case is probably good because it forces the legislature to reconsider the statute. He states it is for the people to remind the Legislature of his mistake and not for the judiciary (Jitani,

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Edward Snowden

    646 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is reasonable to argue that, governmental institutions or people with authority are subject to withhold a great deal of information from society. Many may argue that secrets are kept to ensure the safety of the nation. Thus, upholding the governmental duty of protecting the nation against possible threats. On the other hand, many believe that secrets may exist which violate our constitutional rights. Over the last year, Edward Snowden, has made headline news for leaking sensitive governmental information to the press. Edward Snowden is a 29-year-old high school drop-out, who was a tech specialist for the National Security Association. Snowden had discovered and later exposed the NSA for monitoring the nations e-mails, phone calls, and internet searches. As the allegations spread like wild fire, Edward Snowden sought asylum in Russia for one year. Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens.

    Read More

  • Summary: The Occupy Wall Street Movement

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, although that guarantee is not unrestricted (Applegate, 2007). Freedom of speech should not be subjected to political interference; yet, censorship is necessary in matters of national and military security (Applegate, 2007). Members of the press enjoy the First Amendment of free speech and free expression, but face criminal or tort liability if reporting is done undercover or information is leaked (West, 2014). I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the basic right of all reporters, as it is for all individuals. However, correspondents should conform to the highest ethical standards, respect the privacy of all citizens, and maintain the highest regard for confidentiality

    Read More

  • George Orwell 1984 Language

    915 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Greenwald’s No Place to Hide, he shares that most of the big time news outlets like New York Times and The Washington Post are under the government’s control. On page 53, Greenwald mentioned that Snowden “…frequently referred to the New York Times and other major media outlets that had held up big stories at the government’s request.” Another piece of evidence comes from a television segment of Greenwald debating with D.C. journalist Ruth Marcus. In the clip Greenwald calls out Marcus for adopting the government’s view on Snowden, and her response to the question “exemplifies everything that is really horrible” with the D.C. media (Comsky). This is another example of journalists becoming cogs in the government’s machine. It is sad to see that part of Orwell’s dystopia has come true, however, people like Snowden and Greenwald are still able to think on their own. The people in 1984 do not have this blessing as the government’s practices mentioned above have brain washed the citizens, so the government has complete control over journalism and no one to oppose the news

    Read More

  • Source Disclosure and Journalist's Ethics

    1075 Words  | 3 Pages

    Journalists have a role of delivering key information that our government does not want to disclose to the public. They are protected by the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not protect journalists against source disclosure. The First Amendment states: “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 of a redress of grievances” (qtd. in VanArsdall 16). Because the first amendment does not spell out in detail how the amendment protects journalists, the interpretation of the amendment by lawmakers is often times not enough to clear a journalist from having to disclose a ...

    Read More

More about Reflection Of The First Amendment

Open Document