Law Exam
1\ Example for case briefing
Please read and brief the following cases:
New York Times v. Sullivan
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254
New York Times v. US
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Facts of the case:
A government elected official brought suit in Alabama State Court, Montgomery against the New York Times newspaper. The allegation was that a paid advertisement appeared in the paper, that was presumed to be libelous to the elected official. Libel, if intended with malicious purposes, could be used as a reason to sue in Alabama.
The government official won the case but could not claim damages due to a lack of evidence showing malicious intent.
Issues: The issue being disputed concerned if New York Times had intended malice in its printing of the paid advertisement or if it had intentionally ignored facts in an effort to harm. If this was the case, evidence existed against New York Times.
Decision: The Supreme Court, to which the New York Times appealed after initial judgment in favor of the official, ruled 9 to 0 in favor of the New York Times. Proof could not be established showing malicious intent on the part of the New York Times.
Reasoning: The First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard free speech and damages cannot be awarded to an official by the State if the individual is unable to prove a libelous statement has been made with malicious intent.
Conclusion: The case was a victory for the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment that guaranteed that freedom of speech and press is afforded to the citizens of the United States.
Title: New York Times Co. v. United States
Facts of the case: Richard Nixon acting under the US Govt. brought suit against the New York Times attempting to prevent them from publishing classified articles.
Issues: The issue in question was if the New York Times was acting within its constitutional right to publish freely (as a member of the press)
Decision: The Court ruling was in favor of the New York Times
Reasoning: It is unconstitutional to hinder free speech, as granted by the first amendment, and if the New York Times was stopped from publication, then it would be a direct attack against the rights of the people.
Conclusion: The final ruling secured the freedom of press and its ability to serve the people without pressure from even the government.
2\ Example for case briefing
PLEASE READ AND BRIEF THE FOLLOWING CASES
BRANDENBURG V. OHIO
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
SCHENCK V. US
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47
Title: Brandenburg v. Ohio
Facts of the case: A KKK leader was convicted under an Ohio law that allowed conviction for promoting terrorism or violence as a way to achieve political or industrial changes. This law, known as the Ohio Criminal Sydicalism statute outlawed advocacy of earlier mentioned criminal activities to achieve political reform. The KKK leader made a speech promoting revenge against the government if it did not stop suppressing ‘whites’, and was therefore convicted. Defendant appealed the decision.
Issues: The issue at hand was whether the Ohio Statute violated the First Amendment and Fourteenth amendment rights to freedom of speech under the United States Constitution.
Decision: Reversed. The Justices argued in favor of the Appellant and reversed his conviction.
Reasoning: The Ohio Statute overstepped on the First and Fourteenth Amendments constitutionally allowing freedom of speech and press. It prohibited mere advocacy of violent action or assembling with people advocating such actions. However, under free speech, a citizen is allowed to advocate the use of force – as long as the advocacy does not directly incite or promote certain lawless action. Therefore, the appellant was allowed to make hateful and violent remarks so long as his speech had no danger of actually inciting violent actions. According to the opinion of the Justices, “the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.”
Conclusion: This landmark case overruled an earlier case ‘Whitney v. California’ and guaranteed the primacy of the First Amendment allowing free speech. Citizens of US are allowed to make comments – no matter how hateful or violent – as long as they do not actually cause a group to organize and carry out violent or illegal conduct.
Title: Schenck v. United States
Facts of the case: Defendants were convicted for a conspiracy to promote materials that influenced people to avoid the military draft which is a rule of US law. This promotion of materials was a conspiracy to violate Espionage Act, and a conspiracy to ‘commit an offence agsint the United States’. In addition, the defendants violated the principles of mailing documents that were deemed ‘nonmailable’.
Issue: Whether the leaflets (material) distributed was within the right of freedom to speech, or if they used language that presented a clear danger of individuals committing acts regarded as illegal by the United States.
Decision: Affirmed. The Court held that the material circulated was not within the boundaries of freedom of speech.
Reasoning: The Court argued that since the United States was at war, the language used in the materials circulated presented a clear and present danger to the United States, by preventing people from being sent to war and defend the United States. The Government has a right to prevent actions that are illegal, and in this circumstance, the leaflets imminently promoted actions that were seen as evil and illegal in the eyes of the Government.
Conclusion: The decision of this case gave rise to a new standard that determined the validity of freedom of speech. It added boundaries to freedom of speech by disallowing speech (or circulation of materials) that could lead to a ‘clear and present danger’ to the principles of the United States.
