Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Freedom of Press

No description

Indo Alford

on 15 April 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Freedom of Press

Freedom of Press
Near v. Minnesota, 1931
The conflict was that Near had published a couple of malicious and scandalous articles about some public officials.
The First Amendment, The Fourteenth Amendment
5-4 to Near
Gitlow v. New York
Roth v. US, 1957
Roth operated a book-selling business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity law.
First Amendment
6-3 to the US
Near v. Minnesota
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1988
The Spectrum published two articles submitted for publication for the final edition of the paper containing stories on divorce and teenage pregnancy.
The First Amendment
5-3 in favor of principal
Gitlow v. New York
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 1988
Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The First Amendment
8-0 for Hustler
Gitlow v. New York, 1925
NY Times v. Sullivan, 1964
L.B. Sullivan sued the newspaper for libel and won $500,000 in an Alabama courtroom. The appeal made it’s way to the court due to its violation of free speech.
First and Fourteenth Amendment
9-0 NY Times
Near vs Minnesota
Miller v. California, 1973
MIller was found guilty by the the Superior Court of Orange County for his distribution of obscene material and Miller appealed claiming that they were violating his first amendment rights
5-4 vote California
Roth v. United States
Full transcript