need help...supreme court case

Pre-College Issues High School Life
1

<p>hey i really need your help for this.</p>

<p>in my democracy class, we are acting out supreme court cases (not real ones though) but cases that my teacher made up. basically its me (plantiff) against some one else and i have to show the class evidence that i should win the case. get it?</p>

<p>here is the case:</p>

<p>a newspaper is going to publish an article that tells how to make a dangerous weapon (like a bomb). the government got a federal court injunction against the printing of this article. does this injunction violate Freedom of the Press? </p>

<p>once again, i am just asking for help/evidence that i could back this case( i am the government) but any advice would be helpful.</p>

2

<p>Clear and present danger? Try that one. The case that set the precedent was the Schenk case. Although I don't know how well you could argue for censorship (more success is had with action against a paper after something has been published; courts uphold the freedom of the press most of the time ie the Pentagon Papers).</p>

3

<p>"Clear and present danger"</p>

<p>The new test is "imminent lawless action."</p>

<p>Look at Brandenburg v. Ohio.</p>

4

<p>It is also endangering the lives of citizens... the point of the constitution is to keep peace and tranquility and reserve the assurance of people's safety in their own homes.</p>

5

<p>not sure but maybe cite the constitutionality of the espionage and sedition acts during WWI. Use Schenck v. US</p>

6

<p>In debate terms, for all those debaters out there, just kritik the damn thing- there is no freedom of the press, only the simulation of freedom, and hyperreality has imploded all meaning. Card Baudrillard.</p>

7

<p>LOL.</p>

<p>ahhh....policy.</p>

<p>i hate the absurdity of these arguments. debate is supposed to be a laboratory for the analysis of real-world policies....would this type of argument EVER work in the real world? I bet this guy's teacher would just laugh at him, raise their eyebrows, and walk away.</p>

8

<p>so ebonytear what advice do you give me?
thanks to all who have gave me ideas including Schnek vs. US, espionage and sedition acts, Brandenburg vs. Ohio. For Eugene V. Debs should i relate to him in that during world war one he was a socialist leader that was influnencing the amercian public and thus that would enganger the us gov at the time so they imprisoned him, thus taking away his freedom of speech rights?</p>

9

<p>i don't do much of the court cases stuff, so this is all theoreticals:</p>

<p>"a newspaper is going to publish an article that tells how to make a dangerous weapon (like a bomb). the government got a federal court injunction against the printing of this article. does this injunction violate Freedom of the Press?"</p>

<p>my advice is to do your research! </p>

<p>"This point is made clear in a case that came after New York Times—a case that could have been invented by a law professor. The Progressive was a left-wing magazine that in the late 1970s commissioned an article by Howard Morland about the workings of an H-bomb. The Progressive first submitted the manuscript to the Department of Energy, and the government in turn brought an injunction to block its publication. The government’s claim was compelling: to give to the world the secrets of how to build a bomb would make it possible for any terrorist to annihilate any city. On March 26, 1979, Judge Robert Warren of the Western District of Wisconsin agreed and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining The Progressive from publishing the article."</p>

<p>"The Senate has voted 94-0 to tack onto a Defense
Department spending bill an amendment that would prohibit the
distribution of bomb-making instructions in the United States.</p>

<p>Although the word "Internet" is not mentioned in the four-page
amendment, the legislation would outlaw Web sites, newspapers, zines,
and books that publish instructions on how to make a bomb - such as The
Anarchist's Cookbook and The Terrorist Handbook. Violators would face
fines and prison sentences of up to 20 years.</p>

<p>Sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who has been
trying to get the legislation on the books since 1995, the amendment
passed Thursday is narrowly written to include only the distribution of
material that has an "intent to harm."</p>

<p>one thing you should look at, if you want your evidence/position to corroborate with current events, is the Patriot Act. </p>

<p>I think that's actually the only thing you need to win this argument; the court can simply reference the Patriot Act, which in the name of 'national security' allows the government to basically tap every phone line (even private; yours is not safe!) they want in the United States, because it is a necessary measure to maintain security and thus prevent terrorist action...(it actually even goes beyond that...but that is an example that is symbolic of the tone of the Act...I mean, that's total intrusion on privacy...it also limits stuff like the press and speech and all that good stuff...but really, compare the effect of this tiny part of the Patriot Act to what this case is presenting...the PA affects EVERYONE...)</p>

<p>If that is a 'necessary measure' this falls way beyond that...the Patriot Act essentially, especially in current times, negates a ton of our rights as individuals because it is in the 'interest of national security' and 'the war on terrorism'. This actually presents material that terrorists can definitely have access to, and as the prior article suggests (the latter is something that i think corroborates with the Patriot Act anyway; v. recent), and essentially enable them to present a threat to each and every city....a serious threat, i.e. mass death, destruction.</p>

<p>I think you should set up your argument according to the Patriot Act. It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the SC (LOL...and won't happen any time soon, with the soon to be mass retirement of justices and Bush's stacking of the court with conservatives...and the notion of making Scalia Chief Justice)...and thus is a law that the court must hold up...and the law sets up set standards for what is legal; this case totally falls outside of the legality presented by the Patriot Act and so the government injuction is absolutely legitimate. Esp. under Bush.</p>

<p>OH and weigh it out at the end, seriously:</p>

<p>the freedom of press of the newspaper vs. the life of what could possibly be an unlimited amount of people.</p>

<p>there are numerous scenarios for death in this case; bombs in the US will lead to US action, which we've seen leads to further deaths, and the cycle could have the potential to lead to MASS death...freedom of press and freedom of speech stop mattering at the point you're dead. I mean, you could argue you have to protect freedom of press for futuer generations, and set a precedent of protecting it...but if those future generations are dead...dead men can't talk (or write)...</p>

10

<p>"was a socialist leader that was influnencing the amercian public and thus that would enganger the us gov at the time so they imprisoned him, thus taking away his freedom of speech rights?"</p>

<p>Eugene Debs was imprisioned for his part in the...I forgot, but some strike, tempted to say Great Railroad Strike. He only became socialist (truly socialist, i.e. read Das Kapital by Marx in prison, before was just leader of the union) AFTER prison...AFTER his imprisonment...so that point is totally irrelevant.</p>