Writing Assignment #1a

Writing Assignment #1a - asked for an injunction necessary...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Griffin Warner Writing Assignment #1 A new case has arrived in court where a newspaper writer and his employer want to publish an article filled with “top secret” material. After the United States Department of Defense files for an injunction, the judge presiding over the case would need to re-visit prior restraints; precedents set by previous cases, and must consult the 1 st and 14 th Amendments. Prior restraint in this case incorporates the 1 st and 14 th Amendments into two cases. In 1931, Near v. Minnesota was heard when the Minnesota legislature passed a nuisance law that was made to stop certain publication. Chief Justice Charles Hughes ruled that prior restraints do not accord with the 1 st Amendment and that if this law was allowed, then it would destroy free speech, which is what the journalist is utilizing. Seventeen years later, the Supreme Court faced another case regarding the Vietnam War. As dramatized in The Pentagon Papers , the United States government in The New York Times v. United States
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: asked for an injunction necessary to maintain national security. In the courts opinion, the burden of proof rests on the party who wants the prior restraint, which demonstrates the courts opposition to prior restraint and their desire to uphold the freedoms of speech and the press. The Supreme Courts conclusions in the mentioned cases established a precedent that would be applied to this case. Near v. Minnesota confirmed the 1 st Amendments protection of the freedom of speech and press, while New York Times v. United States established that the burden of proof is the restraining partys responsibility. Both worked together to proclaim the importance of the freedom of speech, which is in danger. Since no war is taking place, no threat of attack exists, and nothing damaging to the governments biological agent is divulged in the story, the judge would rule against the governments injunction and the story would print....
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

Writing Assignment #1a - asked for an injunction necessary...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online