Due November 28, 6 p.m. (e-mail to instructor)
1. Discuss Jay Near and his newspaper in your own words. Why didn’t the powerful people of Minnesota like him?
2. Discuss how Near v. Minnesota made it to the Supreme Court. What, exactly, was the case about? What was the Court’s decision? On what precedent was it based?
3. Discuss 3-4 things you learned about the First Amendment and Minnesota from this story. (Please post the answer to this question as a comment on the course blog. Do so by the due date.)
The answers to these essay questions should total 600-700 words. You can earn up to 6 points. Also, be prepared for an in-class quiz December 5, which will be worth 4 points.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I learned that every person has the right to criticize the government without fear of being discriminated against, first established in the City of Chicago v. The Chicago Tribune case.
I learned that the “gag law” allowed a form of prior restraint which allows government officials to prohibit newspapers or magazines to be punished in which they disapprove.
I learned that for the first time in history a freedom-of-the-press case dealing with prior restraints had made it to the Supreme Court in Near v Minnesota.
I learned that Minnesota had a history of corruption with its political leaders and cities that were run by gangsters.
1) The novel Minnesota Rag showed me the difficulty in fighting for First Amendment rights. Not only was it extremely difficult for Near to bring his case to the Supreme Court, it was extremely expensive. Had Near not had the help of the Chicago Tribune his case surely would have flopped due to a limited amount of resources. Minnesota Rag shows that to fight what you believe in you must have passion and strength, because without it the truth will be difficult to unfold.
2) In Minnesota Rag, I learned a perfect example of how powerful it is that the First Amendment is not set in stone; it is open for interpretation. This example began on March 8, 1930 when Edward Sanford, an associate justice of the Supreme Court died. On this same day William Taft, who recently retired as chief justice of the Supreme Court, died. This left two open spots on the Supreme Court. These spots were filled, but because of the recent events the Near v. Minnesota case could have turned out very different depending on how each individual saw the First Amendment.
3) By reading Minnesota Rag I learned about a period of Minnesota history that was filled with government corruption. There were many different newspapers in circulation at the time, but only one, the Saturday Press, was willing to report the truth of the corruption and fight for their right to report it. This case is not only an important part of Minnesota history, but is the specific case in the legal area of prior restraint.
One thing I learned from this story is that there are many limits on the Freedom of the Press and Free Speech. The terminology in the First Amendment seems to be so basic, yet there are many factors you must take into account when considering what the press can and cannot do. Prior restraint on publishing materials is just one limit that was an occurrence from the book.
I also learned that there could be many exceptions to the use of free speech in the law. The First Amendment seems to be the most basic constitutional law, yet it also seems to be easily misunderstood because everyone makes his own interpretations of it. American’s seem to have their own views on the law.
Lastly, I understand there are ‘no absolutes’ with prior restraint. Prior restraint seems to be a very fragile law that holds different degrees of restrictions and restraints to it. I think the courts, judges, and especially the case itself are some reasons why it is such a fragile law.
One thing important I learned about the First Amendment is that is not a cut and dry law. In the case it was ruled unconstitutional for the prior restraint of the Saturday Press. But in some cases prior restraint is allowable. One example is stopping a publication that has obscenities. But in the Near vs. Minnesota case, it basically set the precedence that prior censorship is permitted in only very unusual cases, often its more of an exception, not a rule. But this just shows how there are still today questions and areas of grey, to the understanding of the First Amendment in regards to prior restraint.
1) I learned that some of the language in the Saturday Press was very harsh. For example Near was very anti-Semetic and expressed it in the paper. That kind of language back then would never be allowed in any newspaper today.
2) I learned that if Chief Justice Taft had been alive during this case, the decision may have been different then the one originally ruled. It goes to show how one Supreme Court member can determine how the court will vote. The court was also more conservative during the time of the 1920's.
3) After reading this novel and looking at now and how we interpret the Constitution today, we still can't figure what the actual meaning of "freedom of the press" means. We still battle over First Amendment rights. It makes wonder as to why we don't rewrite the Constitution to be more up to date with our time instead of trying figure what the Founding Fathers meant.
I learned about the times in Minnesota and across the country. Peoples freedoms were in jepordy. Not only was the prohibition and other restrictions strong freedom of press were endanger by governing powers.
I learned that in the time of Minnesota Rag the rights under the First Ammendment where undeveloped and posed wide room for interpratation. And until the time of Near v. Minnesotsa there weren't clear guidlines of acceptable material to be printed in the press.
I also learned that althogh there are many restrictions on the freedom of speech there is still wide room for interpratation.
I learned that although there many people against you and your should still fight for first ammendmet right although it make take a long time and will undoubtably be very costly.
I learned that just because you have the right to freedom of press, doesn’t mean that people won’t exercise their right to the freedom of speech and contradict what you have to say. I also learned that the state of Minnesota has a very dark past with it comes to the First Amendment, they put a lot of limitations on what newspaper publishers could and could not write, while at the same time those publishers did seem to abuse the right by hiding behind the First Amendment and using it to justify their rights to degrade people publicly. This book also showed how widely the First Amendment could be interpreted, this was shown by the fact that the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the Nuisance Law, while the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the law. I have also learned that fighting for a cause is very costly and can take a long time to finally get the answer you want.
I learned that Minnesota was the first state to use the Public Nuisance Abatement Law (Minnesota Gag Law). They used it on "Saturday Press".
I learned that the First Amendment rights are not that easily obtained when it comes to fighting for your rights. For example, Near had to pay a lot of expenses in order to bring his case to court. I also learned that with the help of others such as the Chicago Tribune, Near would not have had a shot at bringing his case to court. It makes you realize that fighting for justice may be a battle of monetary means along with the truth.
I learned that Minnesota has a history that is extremely eye-opening. Many people have this stereotype of Minnesota as a friendly, "ya, you betcha’s" sorts state, but as you go deeper and deeper into the novel you see Minnesota's dark side when it comes to our newspapers ans what they report from religion to politicians to gangs and cut-throat opinions this novel does not hide the dark side of Minnesota. This novel shows that we are a state that is not afraid to fight for their beliefs and rights when it comes to being just.
I learned that some people such as Near will go to great lengths even if it means losing friendships such as Guilford.
I learned that you can get fined for charges of criminal libel such as the Rip-Saw for $100.00.
- The first aspect of this book that drastically jumped out at me was our states history of crime! I couldn't believe it. It sounds like those old southern movies with all the gambling and shootings in the street. I think this could possibly be why Minneapolis has one of the highest murder rates than any other city.
- When the Minnesota Gag Law came about in 1925, it really surprised me that they didn't pertain it to certain circumstances. I thought censorship of our rights under the First Amendment was illegal. Then when they (U.S. Supreme Court) came to their verdict they put restrictions on prior restraint.
- I think this book shows us how the First Amendment can be interpreted so differently. An editor or writer can believe that they have freedom to write what they wish, but the citizens in whom they write about may not feel the same way. Even the law seems to struggle with boundaries.
1. I learned that laws, like the Public Nuisance Law of 1925, can be passed and put into action and then later on found to be unconstitutional. So it’s smart to go with your senses and keep fighting for your rights regardless of what a specific law says. There’s always that chance someone will side with you and change things around.
2. I learned that there is another side to Minnesota’s history. You wouldn’t expect these stories of blackmailing, extortion, and corruption to be about the politicians and powerful business people of the “Minnesota Nice” state. I actually find it fascinating that there were cases coming out of Minnesota that pushed there way into the U.S. Supreme Court and stirred things up.
3. I also learned that free speech isn’t exactly free. There are limits and prices to be paid in order to fight for what you want to be said to get published for the people to read. The First Amendment does a pretty good job with covering the bases but with times changing, maybe laws need to be changing to. At one point they probably never even thought there would be rebellious newspapers out there publishing news material that was a bit different from the norm.
I learned more about what exactly prior restraint is, and how extreme of a measure it is of censorship and why it should be illigal.
I never knew how corrupt the twin cities were, and how scared other news papers seemed to be of reporting the corruption. I guess I am thankful that, that has all changed now days.
I didn’t realize that Minnesota was involved in one of the most defining First Amendment Supreme Court cases and at the time how many people still didnt back Near and what he was trying to do.
I learned in other law classes that Near V. Minnesota was a major case in defending freedom of the press and defeating prior restraint. However I never realized that the paper that Near published was also constantly using racial and religous slurs. This was very surprising to me as very few, if any, newpapers could get away with saying or printing such things today without facing an expensive lawsuit.
I also learned that the First Ammendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights and other ammendments didn't always apply to the states. I didn't realize that these were originally freedoms enjoyed by only the federal government, and that a combination of cases such as Gitlow v. New York as well as Near v. Minnesota established these right to the states and individuals as well.
Thirdly I learned that income and clout, as well as will power play a major factor on one's ability to defend their rights. The original paper the Ripsaw was far less controversial than Near's but this paper was censored becasue no one like McCormick came in to defend them as he did with Near's paper. Without McCormick, it is very unlikely that near would have had the ability to bring his case all the way to the Supreme Court, let alone win the case.
I learned quite a few things about the First Amendment and Minnesota through reading this book. I learned that Minnesota does not have a pure history by any means, and the corruption that has taken place in many larger cities in the United States also took place right here. The scandals about bribery were not at all surprising, because any major city will have corruption. The only surprising thing about this is the fact that it is not taught in many classes, at least no classes that I’ve had until this point. I also learned that the First Amendment does not always have to be included in decisions about the freedoms of speech and press because the Fourteenth Amendment shows how those apply specifically to the states.
• I learned a lot about the history and corruption on the Iron Range. The mob had its grip and influences everywhere. Prohibition sparked many illegal drinking establishments run by the mob, and these places of business were protected by the police for a price.
• I’m so glad Justice Sanford and Justice Taft died when they did. If they hadn’t, the First Amendment might not be as protected as it is. I was surprised at the Supreme Court’s ruling that anything can be published by anyone, whether it is true or not. Libel suits are the best way to battle untrue statements.
• There must have been a lot of corruption in all parts of Minnesota legislature and public officials for them to pass this Public Nuisance Bill without notifying the public correctly about its effect on newspapers. Even when the creators of the Bill had second thoughts about its constitutionality, the state legislature would not repeal the law.
After reading the story, I realized that firstly, the freedom of speech of the press is not unlimited in all circumstances. Even though in a majority of cases, the press did win their First Amendment right, there are situations in which prior restraint and/or other similar forms infringement upon the speech freedom are constitutional. For instance, this can happen during wartimes for national security reasons.
Secondly, Minnesota was a relatively conservative state when it comes to the press freedom. (Has it been like this all the while?) As I was reading the story, I had the anticipation that the press’s victory in this First Amendment battle would be cheered upon. Yet, it came to my surprise that a number of these papers were unhappy with the outcome — they would rather prefer the gag law. This seems odd to me.
Thirdly, I now know that Minnesota was not as “clean” as I had always thought it could be, especially the old Minnesota was plagued by dirty politicians. The scarier part is that some of the state’s major newspapers were connected to the corrupted state government.
Lastly, I also learned that it can be tricky and vague when deciding whether an injunction on the press, such as the one imposed on Near’s Saturday Press, is actually a prior restraint or punishment for libeling public officials. I think in the end, a good way to clear the doubt is to investigate what is going on behind the political scene in order to determine who is telling the truth.
I learned that the "gag laws" were first put into effect in Minnesota in 1925 because of John L. Morrison's Rip-Saw. I learned that some forms of prior restraint is permissible during war, the publication of material before a trial, or when a criminal wants to get famous from documenting crimes committed. I also learned that Minnesota was just like any other industrial city at the turn of the century. I thought stories of gangsters, dirty politicians, prostitutes, gambling, and prohibition were only in movies. It definitely shed some light on the Twin Cities of that time.
One of the mentionable things I learned from this book was that Justice Butler was originally from Minnesota; he was a democrat who had practiced law on the Iron Range and in the Twin Cities. He was then appointed by President Harding to his Supreme Court position (I just like it when Minnesotans make it onto the national scene). Another thing that completely shocked me was the quote “There is no constitutional right to publish a fact merely because it is true,” (62). If you can’t publish the truth, the First Amendment might as well be rescinded. The better-of-the-two interpretations of the Freedom of the Press emphasizes the market place of ideas when Senator James Reed says, “Liberty of the press is not the right to expose and defend the right; it is the right to advocate the wrong.”
But the biggest piece of knowledge a reader can get from this book is found in the final pages, when Friendly draws the connections between a little-known Minnesota case and the national crisis concerning the Pentagon Papers. It was Justice Black who reiterated the arguments of the Near v. Minnesota case in defending the New York Times and Washington Post: “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in the government…” (176). Though Friendly spent very little time on developing the importance between the Saturday Press and the watchdog role of the Fourth Estate, he does make it clear how important the Saturday Press was in saving our First Amendment rights.
I found Minnesota Rag to be a really insightful read. And I learned that our own state isn't always so hum-drum like everyone makes it out to be. I learned that we have had our past is filled with corruption, gangs, brothels, landmark court cases, and everything that's needed for an awesome blockbuster thriller.
I have learned, or maybe have been reinforced, with the idea that if there are injustices in the world, whatever they are, it takes only one person to stand up, and fight for what is right. It is a very inspiring bit of wisdom to hold onto.
I also learned that we, as budding journalists, should hold the First Amendment close to us, because it's a tough case to win if the defendant is willing to stay strong and fight for their right to free speech and freedom of the press.
P.S. I tried posting this once before...but I didn't have a stupid google account, so it erased my stuff. lame. ;)
From this case, I've learned that just because you have the Freedom of Press does not mean that you can just go around publishing anything that you like for your own convenience as there are consequences that you will face.
secondly although its stated in the First Amendment that there is the Freedom of Press and the Freedom of Speech, sometimes its best to be careful of what you are about to publish or say. i guess you can say that there is pros and cons to everything and by having the freedom of press and speech there are pros and cons.
and thirdly after reading this novel, it made me realize how bad corruption was back in the day and who knew how badly corrupted the Minnesota government was until everything was revealed by Near. if he hadn't done so, no one would know what was going on and this issue wouldn't have been resolved.
•Under the Minnesota Gag Law, a judge could stop the publication of a newspaper even though the judge has concluded that the publication is “absence, lewd, and lascivious.” Besides that, the Gag Law did not seek to redress individual’s wrong such as libel against the police chief or mayor. This means that the officials are free to sue against Near for the defamatory statement in the publication.
•There is many different ways of interpreting the rights of the Minnesota Rag under the First Amendment. Before the case of Near vs. Minnesota, there are no exactly any clear cut guidelines of what is acceptable or not and what should be allowed to be printed in the press.
•In the case story, it is mentioned that the ‘prior restraint’ has violated the First Amendment because it limits the freedom of speech and the freedom of press on publication. In addition, public officials must have their actions subject to public investigation and criticism; if the charges are false they may sue under libel laws. However, only in exceptional circumstances should government be grated a prior restraint.
Firstly, the First Amendment decision has become a core constitutional precedent that protects the press from unwarranted government interference in the newsroom but the story also argued that First Amendment only applies to “Congress” and the federal government not the state which is Minnesota.
Secondly, the cases story mentioned that the ‘prior restraint’ violated the First Amendment because it limited the freedom of speech and the freedom of press on publication. In addition, public officials must have their actions subject to public investigation and criticism; if the charges are false they may sue under libel laws. However, only in exceptional circumstances should government be grated a prior restraint.
In contrast, under the law which is dubbed the Minnesota Gag Law, a judge could stop the publication of a newspaper if the judge concluded the publication is “absence, lewd, and lascivious.” Adding on, the gag law did not seek to redress individual wrong such as libel against the police chief or mayor, therefore, the officials are free to sue against Near for the defamatory statement in the publication.
Taking a look at this subject was particular interesting, as it involved two things of interest to me, Minnesota history and mass media. The first thing I gained from the book was a better understanding of the level of corruption around the state. I was aware of mobsters running things in large East Coast cities, but not in Minnesota. The second thing was learning about the Public Nuisance Law, which I had no idea about until reading about it. Finally, I learned about how the 14th Amendment has a connection to the First Amendment, expanding certain law to the states.
1) I had no idea what life was like in Minnesota in the 1920's. I guess I always imagined Minnesota as a peaceful, quiet, state with no real problems. After reading the first couple of chapters I knew that I was completely wrong. This book made Minnesota look and sound like one of "The Godfather" movies. I was very shocked to learn that MN had gangs, shootings, and so many prohibition problems.
2) I never knew that people could stop a publication from being sold. The "gag law" made that possible and I could hardly believe what I was reading.
3) It was very surprising to me that the Supreme Court would rule that censorship of a newspaper was unconstitutional. Not that I didn't believe this was the right decision, but the fact that they made this decision in such a conservative time in American history. With all of the gang/mob violence, prohibition, gambling, and numerous other problems in the country at the time I found this decision very brave and noble.
I learned a lot of things about the First Amendment from the Minnesota Rag. The thing that I was most interested to learn about was how these scandal sheets, and weekly rags were popular during this time. It makes me wonder how closely they resemble the tabloids of today. I was also very surprised to see what a big role Near v. Minnesota played in the Pentagon Papers case. I hadn't even heard of Near v. Minnesota before I read this book; so it was very surprising to find out that Near was cited ten times in the Justices opinions. I also realized after reading this book what an important part the freedom of the press and the First Amendment plays in our everyday lives.
Post a Comment