PART 1: “The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.”
—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
The freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, is critical to a democracy in which the government is accountable to the people. A free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing. It is also a vibrant marketplace of ideas, a vehicle for ordinary citizens to express themselves and gain exposure to a wide range of information and opinions
Understanding:
Protections of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties.
Objective:
Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First reflects a commitment to individual liberty.
ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE
Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment reflects a commitment to individual liberty.
In New York Times Co. v. United States EditEditLinks to an external site.(1971), (Pentagon Papers) the Supreme Court bolstered the freedom of the press, establishing a “heavy presumption against prior restraint” even in cases involving national security.How does Near v. MinnesotaLinks to an external site. and New York Times v. SullivanLinks to an external site. establish the protections extended to the Press in New York Times Co. v. United StatesLinks to an external site.? (No Prior RestraintLinks to an external site. and Libel Law)New York Times v. Sullivan and New York Times v. United States are two different cases!
VideosFreedom of the PressNear v. Minnesota-No Prior RestraintLinks to an external site.
NY Times v. Sullivan (LibelLinks to an external site.)
NY Times v. Sullivan (Libel)
New York Times v. US
NY Times v United StatesNew York Times Co. v. United StatesDiscussion Question:
Understand the concepts of No Prior RestraintLinks to an external site. and LibelLinks to an external site.. These concepts allow news agencies to report the news without fear of being blocked or sued.
How did the Supreme Court’s holding in New York Times v. United StatesLinks to an external site. enhance the concept of No Prior Restraint? PART 2: In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. At trial, the prosecution’s case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966.The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl WarrenLinks to an external site., ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse “to be a witness against himself,” and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.The Court maintained that the defendant’s right against self-incrimination has long been part of Anglo-American law as a means to equalize the vulnerability inherent in being detained. Such a position, unchecked, can often lead to government abuse. For example, the Court cited the continued high incidence of police violence designed to compel confessions from a suspect. This and other forms of intimidation, maintained the Court, deprive criminal suspects of their basic liberties and can lead to false confessions. The defendant’s right to an attorney is an equally fundamental right, because the presence of an attorney in interrogations, according to Chief Justice Warren, enables “the defendant under otherwise compelling circumstances to tell his story without fear, effectively, and in a way that eliminates the evils in the interrogations process.”Without these two fundamental rights, both of which, the Court ruled, “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings,” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.”Thus, to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law, the Court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated. These mandatory “Miranda Rights” begin with “the right to remain silent,” and continue with the statement that “anything said can and will be used against [the defendant] in a court of law.” The police are further compelled to inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for (or, if necessary, provide for) a defendant’s attorney who can accompany him during interrogations. Because none of these rights was afforded to Ernesto Miranda and his “confession” was thus unconstitutionally admitted at trial, his conviction was reversed. Miranda was later retried and convicted without the admission of his confession.Miranda v. Arizona, in creating the “Miranda Rights” we take for granted today, reconciled the increasing police powers of the state with the basic rights of individuals. Miranda remains good law today.VideosDue Process and the Rights of the Accussed Terry v. OhioTerry v. Ohio- Terry StopMiranda- Bill of Rights InstituteMiranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona Mapp v. Ohio New Jersey v. T.L.O. Use the to help with this assignment.B.3.3.5 Assigned Videos- 4th Amendment- Rights of the Accused
B.3.2.6 Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment Rights – Case Law
Discussion Question:What are the limits of Search and SeizureAnalyze the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio. and TLO v. New Jersey. What “statement” is the court making about the “collection of evidence.?”
Why did the Supreme Court “lower” the standard in TLO? What is the search standard in a public school?
How does the Terry Stop “link” with the standards in the cases above? PART3: Cases by Amendment may be found below.B.3.2.2 First Amendment-Freedom of Religion – Case Law
B.3.2.3 First Amendment-Freedoms of Speech and Expression – Case Law
B.3.2.4 First Amendment– Freedom of the Press-Case Law
B.3.2.5 Second Amendment- Right to Bear Arms – Case Law
B.3.2.6 Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment Rights – Case Law
B.3.2.7 Eighth Amendment- Right against Cruel and Unusual Punishment – Case Law
B.3.2.8 Right to Privacy – Case Law
Discussion Question: Choose a case and a right that has been brought into the states via the 14th Amendment and comment on the following:Using the Supreme Court’s ruling, state why the right was necessary to be incorporated into the states.
How has the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the right changed since its incorporation and why? (Warren Court to Rehnquist/Robert’s Court)
THE PREVIOUS IS Example of a case and a right – Mapp v. Ohio establishes the Exclusionary Rule which blocks the use of evidence improperly obtained by police in a trial.
