Flipped Classroom # 3
The First Amendment
To what extent should the government be allowed to practice Prior Restraint?
Please watch the Google Presentation below and leave aquestion or comment below.
https://docs.google.com/a/msd23.org/presentation/d/1djG_1xWNajOIsuZV95BZpFceZmzs5zrSHT255Tib6Qw/edit#slide=id.p
A copy of the Google Presentation is in the msd23.org account that we used in class to write the Amicus Curiea Briefs
A copy of the Google Presentation is in the msd23.org account that we used in class to write the Amicus Curiea Briefs
The first time I clicked the link the videos didn't load, I refreshed the page and the video ran perfectly. I look foward to your comments.
ReplyDeleteIf the link doesn't work I "SHARED" the Presentation file to your school accounts, the same way I shared the Amicus Curiea brief project.
ReplyDeletethe government should only be allowed to use prior restraint if it is going to send a positive precedent for the government officials and politicians to come. If you are trying to stop something before it happens, how can you predict the outcome of the action your trying to stop? you can't you are using a collective opinion and using prior restraint for something that you do not want to happen unless it is very blaintly obvious it is an overall bad action to let happen.
ReplyDeleteConsider the KKK rally in Manhattan, they wanted to do it Harlem before the Mayor relocated them to the fron steps of City Hall
DeleteIn my opinion, the government should only be allowed to use prior restraint when it is necessary. For example, with the KKK march, they agreed that the KKK can only march if they don't have a mask on; But why let them have their parade if they know it is going to cause controversy with the people of New York. I agree with Mike on how it has to be a positive precedent and the KKK march should of been stopped.
ReplyDeleteWho gets to decide necessity?
DeleteI agree with the point Mike brought up that the government cannot predict the outcome of an event before it happens. Many did not want the KKK to rally due to their past with the lynching of blacks and other hate crimes, but the outcome of the parade was one of unity in the community and inferiority of the few who still wanted to represent the KKK without their mask. Blacks, gays, and many other cultural groups have rallies so constitutionally prior restraint cannot be used without being unfair to the KKK (even though I do not support what they have done in the past). Precedents must be set for rallies such as this one and with the slight violence and hostility that occurred, an increased police presence can be deemed necessary in the event of a future rally. In the case of a somewhat silent protest, however, prior restraint can not be imposed on a group, despite the high level of dislike within the community.
ReplyDeleteI know you said we will talk about it more in class, but I still don't understand what prior restraint has to do with the cases you talked about with freedom of speech. Also, I agree with Mike and Paraskevas in that the government should only use prior restraint when there is a clear threat to peoples safety. The issue on who gets to decide could be solved easily, just appoint that job to any group of politicians whether is be congress, the senate or even the Supreme Court. Who decides it isn't the real problem.
ReplyDeleteWhen the courts/government establishes a doctrine - "Cear and Present Danger" they are establishing a precedent for Prior Restraint. So the ruling serves as a guide to prevent future generations from exercising their rights before they have an opportunity to - the act is restrained prior to the disturbance.
DeleteMichael N
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech is not complete and infinite, and despite what people constantly seem to think, does not refer to any and all cases of verbal expression. (see the "can't shout fire in a movie theater idea") People are so eager to proclaim "I'm just exercising my freedom of speech" they fail to take into account what the amendment really means and what it was meant for. (That's right, I'm pulling in purposivism from that other flip classroom)
Freedom of speech refers to the freedom to express one's opinion and ideas without them being shut down BECAUSE PEOPLE OR THE GOVERNMENT DISAGREE WITH THE IDEA. It states nothing about the method by which an idea is conveyed. If somebody repeatedly stabs someone in order to "express their dislike for that person" THEY'RE STILL GETTING CONVICTED OF MURDER!
Appropriate use of prior restraint is preventing dangerous, unseemly, and/or illegal activities, just as we would like to prevent if that behavior didn't involve free speech.
Abuse of prior restraint is the example of taking people who oppose a new president way from their inauguration in order to silence them and keep them out of the media, and pretending it is the former, to prevent violence from breaking out.
I can imagine you want to respond with "How can you tell when a case is one or the other between those two things?" To which I say, and this is by no means me avoiding the question, you can't. What is or is not dangerous, what ulterior motives people might have, it gets very subjective and touchy, there's no way to determine anything. The best we can do is define the difference objectively, and try our best on a case-by-case basis to see, is this being prevented because it is illegal/dangerous or because someone who disagrees wants those people silenced?
Michael N
With what Casey said about who decides it isn't the real problem, if the group of politicians in question is entirely made up of the same political party, or one party has a majority within that group, the miniority opinion would be silenced/have a harder time expressing ideas. And seeing as the first amendment is supposed to protect the rights of the minority opinion (the majority usually doesn't need protection) there is a possibility of the group defeating the purpose of the amendment.
ReplyDeleteAre there any examples of laws that passed and/or failed the"lemon test"? With the part where it says a law must be secular in intent, if the law in question is similar to a religious belief (eg a law against bigamy or same-sex marriage when multiple religions define marriage as a union between one man and one woman) how would someone prove secular intent?
I agree with my classmates that prior restraint should only be used when it is necessary and the outcome is clear. With the KKK march, although many people disagreed with the march, they were not doing anything to harm anyone until everyone else started protesting. I believe that the KKK should have been allowed to march because they were following the rule and not wearing masks and instead just silently protesting. After what the KKK has done in the past the government could have predicted the reactions the other cultural groups in the city would have and done whatever needed to stop any fights from occurring, but to say the KKK is at fault and say they can not silently protest is in my opinion unfair.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government has the right to limit the freedom of speech of a citizen when there is a clear and present danger, but it must be clear and present and not based on what they believe is right and wrong.
Prior restraint should be used when needed. For example, if a group is known for violence or if there has been a huge hype that would lead to people believing that there would be some type of violent outburst. The KKK in Harlem, after knowing their opposition against black people, is a great example of when prior restraint is necessary. Jane makes a great point when she says that only when there is clear and present danger. If people's right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion are infringed upon unnecessarily, then the bill of rights and our forefathers ideals are not being accurately represented.
ReplyDeleteIs the government taking advantage of the vagueness of the first amendment, or did the framers of the bill of rights make it that vague for a reason? If the answer is that the government is taking advantage of the terminology of the first amendment, could that be seen as an attempt to limit the rights of the people of the United States? If the answer is the framers intended the vagueness, could that be seen as the anti-federalists wanting the bill of rights to be able to adapt to the times and be intended to help people with their rights as the times changed?
ReplyDeleteRemember that many of the Jeffersonians envisioned a rewrite of the constitution in its entirety with each generation. Also the final draft was a result of compromise. The first Amendment had many other ideas removed. Remember our discussions on Liberty of Conscience
DeleteAnother example of prior restraint that I believe is important to analyze is the WikiLeaks military scandal. Last summer, U.S. soldier Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in a military prison for divulging more than 700,000 classified files to WikiLeaks in the biggest breach of secret data in the nation's history. The government strongly urged WikiLeaks to not publish the data in fear of civil unrest. They did not comply.
ReplyDeleteIn this scenario, prior restraint was attempted, but failed. The question outlying is, is prior restraint necessary or is it futile? Should the public know the government's actions? (as in the Pentagon Papers example)
How does Tim's idea compare to the Pentagon Papers case.
DeleteI believe that prior restraint is necessary when it comes to the public knowing abut the governments actions. What the people don't know wont hurt them and it is better for the people to be uninformed rather than in danger. Tim mentioned how prior restraint failed in his example with WikiLeaks. The pentagon papers case argued if the government can prevent the Times from publishing incriminating information about the Nixon administration and the reason for going into Vietnam. The war was still waging so protecting this information and having it not be published was the smart idea. People not knowing this information is against their rights, however when it comes down to protecting national security and the lives of others, it would be better for prior restraint to come into action here.
ReplyDeleteThe government should never censor speech and press to a point where a significant minority of individuals are afraid to speak their minds. This will only lead to the government being unaware of certain problems facing the nation, a condition that can only lead to ineffective government.
ReplyDeleteWith Lehman vs. Kurtzman, was the issue that Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were giving Catholic school teachers funding in every subject except Bible studies? I'm still a bit confused about the details of that case.
Although some information might be unsettling, I do not think that the government should have the ability to censor information from the public. As Schulte stated, if the minority of individuals are afraid to speak their minds, the government has created a dangerous situation. I thought Tim brought up a good point about comparing the WikiLeaks case to the Pentagon Papers. Many people seem to believe that these two cases are related, but I’m not sure if one can say that easily. By hiding the diplomatic volumes of the Pentagon Papers, official wrongdoing by the government was shielded. I suppose at the time it seemed like a good idea to hide this information to protect the public, but was it really beneficial to hide the duplicitous nature of the government? The WikiLeaks case dealt with the hiding of “secrets,” but these secrets for the most part do not reveal any misconduct by the US.
ReplyDeleteMan this unit would be much easier if the framers of the constitution hadn't been so vague. I feel like so many of the rights that we are guaranteed aren't truly guaranteed, but rather kinda sorta promised to us. Interesting to think about how court cases that rely on the rights granted to citizens in the constitution play out because each judge can interpret what the framers meant in a hundred different ways. Why is it that the government withholds certain rights like freedom of speech to be 100% guaranteed, if it is simply stated in the constitution that the government shall make no law restricting certain given rights, then who do they often limit our rights?
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent hate speech should be protected. It should be protected in a way that prevents opinions that are politically disagreed with from being branded as hate speech. Vile, illogical hatred spewed by groups like the KKK should not be protected, I think that they should have let that crowd eat the "demonstrators" alive, but when it comes to hate speech protection, we must always be vigilant that mere dissent is never branded as hate speech.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not believe that the government should use prior restraint at all. The Framers gave us the right of freedom of speech et al. Therefore, let the people speak! If the gathering is threatening, police force could be used afterwards. I know my belief isn't realistic in the current times, but it is still how I feel. Megan Byrne
ReplyDeleteI believe that although Prior Restraint limits our freedom of speech, in cases like the KKK march, it was necessary in order to prevent violence and keep the peace. The government still allows the KKK organization to remain legal, and people can still practice their first amendment right as being part of this organization, but it is our government's job to keep us safe. The government needs to use prior restraint on a case by case basis, with safety and peace as the dominant concerns, hopefully without the interference of politics.
ReplyDeleteCheck Your shared drive from the Google account (msd23.org) I sharedthe presentation with everyone if the above link doesn't work
ReplyDeleteWhile hate speech is undesirable, it is a right that Americans have. This is a right that should remain protected but it must also be limited in an event where the lives of another group is put in clear danger. Hate is a form of opinion and as Americans we have a right to express our opinion in an appropriate manner. But as we saw in the presentation that "appropriate manner" is subjective to one's individual moral belief, which is why hate speech should be limited under the government's discretion.
ReplyDeleteI believe that censorship is necessary to protect the American people in the presence of clear and present danger. However, the subjectivity of deciding where to draw the line between free speech and taking things too far is a blurry one. Despite their immensely unpopular beliefs, unrobed members of the KKK should be allowed to peacefully stand outside of New York City Hall; but, their original plan of protesting while robed in Harlem is a blatant danger to those in the surrounding area since they are clearly inciting a riot.
ReplyDeleteTouching on the first question and a response to the video, I believe the media is ignoring these major issues simply because they know these issues are not what ordinary Americas are interested in. As bad as it sounds, I do not want to open up a newspaper and read about the acts of torture my county is partaking in, but instead I want to read about the results from last night’s sports game or read a gossip column. On the other hand, the government must also not want the media to know a lot about their practices and would probably like to keep some aspect of their actions private. Also I have a question regarding the lemon test, what exactly is it? Is it an actual thing or more of just a phrase? You said in class and in these slides that it is against the first amendment to endorse a single religion, yet on our money and in the Pledge of Allegiance we reference God, have religions who do not believe in God fought this as a first amendment violation? I am confused as to how this is allowed.
ReplyDeleteMegan Musachio
I don't agree that censorship is needed at all. Many Americans feel like we don't have censorship in America but if you look closely at what news we hear in the US and what news is reported else where it is heavily, heavily modified. I think that, to go back to the first question now, Americans today aren't necessarily complacent with what's happening in the US and don't want to riot but rather that our news is so censored now that we don't know what's true and what's not. We hear one thing but then later here it was only a "rumor" and it's not true. At this point no one can tell the difference anymore over what's actually happening in our country. So I actually do not agree with Prior Restraint at all. I think it's extremely corrupt and the government can easily manipulate it to suit whatever needs they may have.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not morally agree with censorship, throughout the history of the US, it has proven to be necessary. There are circumstances when suspending a persons first amendment rights is necessary to preserve the safety of the US. I feel like there are times when the suspension of these rights could be abused but it seems to benefit the nation as a whole.
ReplyDelete"Children only have the rights that adults choose to give them" -Clarence Thomas That line was amusing. Do children receive the same protection under the Constitution as adults do? If not, how do their rights differ from those enjoyed by adults?
ReplyDeleteCensorship is not necessary to keep the nation safe, in fact it makes the citizens unaware of the issues around them and limits the rights that were supposedly guaranteed to them. I agree with Jenna that although no one wants to hear hateful speeches they are a matter of opinion and citizens should be allowed to express their opinions. Prior restraint is unnecessary in almost all situations and shouldn't be used to limit any citizens right to free speech (of opinion, not spreading hurtful lies or creating chaos like screaming fire in a crowd) or to limit the knowledge of government activity that all citizens should have the right to know about and are entitled to know.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the lengths the US has gone to in regards to censorship in order to "preserve national security" by use of prior restraint as well as denying free speech on certain occasions. I feel free speech/ expression should be an inalienable right regardless of whether or not you are in agreement of what is being stated such as concerning the kkk rally. Although I don't agree with what they're saying and citizens were in vehement opposition to their views they have the right speak their mind. This entire ordeal seems very "double edged sword"-y.
ReplyDeleteAlthough ideally I don't agree with regulation of free speech, this country has to be a safe place for everyone therefore in some cases free speech has to be restricted. However it is so subjective what can be considered offensive to people that I don't think it really is something than people can somewhat compromise on. I feel like you have to have either unrestricted free speech of heavily restricted "free speech" and if you had to pick one I'd naturally pick unrestricted free speech even though what some people might be saying they have the right to speak their minds.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the regulation of free speech is a necessary evil. While unrestricted free speech would be great in an ideal world, the real world presents certain situations that require the repression of certain methods of expression. There will always be people who look to use the excuse of free speech in order to do serious hard to other individuals or the nation as a whole. It is up to the government to determine where to draw the line and it is up to the American people to constantly question the government's decisions in order to ensure that the maximum amount of freedom of speech safely possible is granted to Americans.
ReplyDeleteFree speech is good for the nation since it is the only way to spread information, information that citizens have the right to know. With that being said, I still believe that the regulation of it is necessary in our current judiciary system. Although hate filled speeches voice the opposite opinion to things which are modes of gaining more information, in many cases the hate comes with some lies which sometimes amounts to violence. If violence amounts from free speech, then something needs to change because safety should be the number one concern of the government. With the current punishment for violence, perhaps regulation of speech is necessary, but if stricter punishments for violence in order to protect the safety of citizens were enforced, maybe the regulation of free speech could be toned down to a compromising level.
ReplyDeleteI agree that freedom of religion is not absolute, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. One of the professors made a good point about a very controversial topic. She said that some religions do not believe in medicine and that when a child, who is part of that religion is sick, the government will step in and get involved. As United States citizens we are given certain freedoms, but when safety becomes a matter of concern, the government will intervene. Unfortunately, when the government decides to step in is all subjective.
ReplyDeleteAlthough personally I don't agree with it, I feel that the government should restrict freedom of speech under certain circumstances. I feel that during times of war freedom of speech should be censored because every threat should be taken seriously. During these times any information given out by the government could be used against them so this information should be kept secret. In all other cases I feel that the right to freedom of speech should be exercised.
ReplyDeleteAs an American citizen I want to be able to feel safe, and I am completely OK with having some of my rights infringed upon now and again if it means that I will be safer, however I feel that the amount of rights that have been infringed upon thus far and the reasons for it are wrong and unforgivable. Although the video in the beginning had an intense bias, he spoke the truth throughout most of it; we are losing our want to question the government, and as a result they are getting away with slowly taking away our rights for the sake of what they claim to be "national security", but which seems more like a way to more easily control the American people. Government was never intended to be this powerful, and I can say for certain that right now, this government is neither for the people nor by the people.
ReplyDelete