Chapter 2: The First Amendment

Topic Overview:
The first amendment provides the American public with the ability to speak on topics that are important but that might not necessarily be the same opinion of others. However, the United States still holds a limit on what exactly citizens can say and do and where they can express their viewpoints. In this chapter, we discuss how the judicial branch applies the first amendment and on what lands people are able to express their opinions.


Defining Key Terms:

• ad hoc balancing: Making decisions according to the specific facts of the case under review rather than more general principles. 
• Categorical Balancing: The practice of deciding cases by weighing different broad categories to create general rules that may be applied in later cases with similar. 
• Seditious Libel: Communication meant to incite people to change the government; criticism of the government. 
• Injunction: Court order prohibiting a person or organization from doing some specified act. 
• Strict Scrutiny: A court test to determine the constitutionality of laws aimed at speech content.
• Symbolic Expression: An action that warrants some First Amendment protection because its purpose is to express ideas. 
• Intermediate Scrutiny: A standard applied by the courts to review laws that implicate core constitutional values. 
• Important Government Interest: An interest of the government that is substantial or significant but not compelling. 
• Traditional Public Forums: Free speech is protected in like public streets, sidewalks, and parks. 
• Designated Public Forums: Government spaces or buildings that are available for public use (within limits). 
• Nonpublic Forums: Government-held property that is not allowed to be used for public speech and assembly purposes. 

Important Cases: 

New York Times Co. v. The United States (1971): The Supreme Court ruled that a court order preventing publication based on information linked from the Pentagon was unconstitutional based on prior restraint. Prior restraint is only allowed when it is clear that the release of information would lead to harm/danger. 

Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): The town's sign law was in violation of strict scrutiny, therefore it was unconstitutional.  

Relevant Doctrine: 

The Near Test (1931)

Prior Restraints are constitutional when necessary to prevent:

• Obstruction of military recruitment
• Publication of troop locations, numbers, and movement (national security)
• Foreseeable overthrow of government
• Obscene publications
• Incitements to violence
• Fighting words

Strict Scrutiny

1. Be necessary and 
2. Use the least restrictive means
3. To advance a compelling government interest

Intermediate Scrutiny

1.  Fall within the power of government and
2. Advance an important or substantial government interest that is unrelated to the suppression of speech and 
3. Be narrowly tailored to impose only an incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms. 

Current Issues or Controversies:
The current U.S. president and his administration do not think that it is right for the press should speak out in such a harsh and critical way of the government but the job of journalists is not to withhold information from the public. I think that the way this administration behaves and speaks out against the media has contested with first amendment freedoms.


My Questions/Concerns:

1. What is an example of regulated speech?
2. For a content-based law what qualifies as "compelling government interest"?
3. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the city was not allowed the create categories for signs because there were too many regulations?

References:

Trager, Robert., Ross, Susan Dente., & Reynolds, Amy (2018), The Law of Journalism and Mass Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.