Near V Minnesota (1931)

Hey guys, so I'm going to be doing a video

of my case, which is the nervous is Minnesota case.

I just thought a video would be a more engaging

way to talk about my case and just just give

you an insight about the case was about.

So starting off, we have the background um junior, who

is an owner of a publishing company, publisher, scandal sheet

Indianapolis um in which he attacked local officials charging that

they were in um implicated with Gangsters.

And under a state legislation that enabled such action against

magazines. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to ban near from

printing newspaper.

So basically what happened was that J published a story

that Basically portray people in a bad way.

And under the Minnesota law, this was considered an offense

and people actually had the right to take down his

publishing company.

So let's get deeper.

So in the next side, we're going to be talking

about facts about what is going on in the case.

So the facts in the case is that in 1927,

the Saturday press, which was ran by actually Jane year,

I ran a series denouncing government leaders and accused them

of collaborating with Jewish Gangsters.

Officials in the in Minnesota saw a permanent injunction against

near preventing him and his group from printing any more

books protected by Minnesota public nuisance law, which states that

anyone who publishes obscene, harmful or scandalous material is committing

a public offense and is buried from publishing in the

future. So, basically, what happened in Minnesota is that they

wanted to live this unreal utopian live for anyone can't

voice the opinion, especially when it's a bad one, or

basically painting someone as a bad figure, even though it's

true, they would basically had have this law that they

can shut down your publishing company and they can make

you not like, published things forever.

So, let's get deeper into the case.

So this basically had lower court verdict in november 22nd

1927 where Judge Mattias baldwin of their hairpin county district

bear the defendants from editing publishing or circulating.

The hearing was held in december 2nd and future Annapolis

mayor thomas Vladimer deferred to this shot arguing that defendants

acts are permitted by the U.

S. And Minnesota constitutions.

So basically what happened was that this judge was basically

like a junior you're going to have to stop publishing.

And he was basically going on the um pants if

signs. But we see this mayor stepping up and saying

that this actually this case actually needs like hearing and

that this is by the U.

S. Law and by the state's law.

So we're going to dive deeper into the petition before

the Supreme Court.

So near basically asserted that the Minnesota Gag law infringe

uncompressed and like suppressed like freedom of speech under the

first and 14th amendment.

Near also indicated that his publications was not intended to

be unlawful.

The First Amendment establishes that four great liberties, freedom of

speech, freedom of press, freedom of for lying and freedom

of assembly.

And the 14 Amendment states that dow shall make or

enforce law which shot a barge a bridge that and

and in Forest Law, which shall infringe the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States.

So basically what was happening here was that jay here

basically said that that violated the First and 14th Amendment.

Um and he wanted people to actually hear him out

and actually so that they can go on trial and

so that everyone can know that what he was trying

to portray wasn't unlawful.

He basically thought that the law that they had which

enabled like Minnesota office officials to basically do that to

publishing companies wasn't right.

Right? So next stop, we're going to see the relief

stop. So basically, um, the pant, if a K.

A. The Minnesota government really just wanted everyone living in

Minnesota to be very stagnant and not do anything about

issues that they would notice and let the government take

care of it even though they weren't even taking care

of it.

So basically what was happening was in Minnesota was that

anyone who basically have like another opinion or basically didn't

like um, follow like they're conservative thinking where nothing is

going to change and that and everything is just going

to stay the same would be considered like an outlier

and then the government is going to do something about

it. And so that is basically what happened.

And junior thought that it was in this responsibility to

do something because he didn't think that that was right.

So next we're going to see the majority boarding and

the public nuance law was affirmed as a form of

prior restraint and violated the first and 14th amendments.

As we talked about prior ashamed permit when speeches vulgar

violence or reveals military secrets flaws was that the fact

that the law required no proof of malice on the

part of the state and that even had the law

wish was like not censoring by itself and nonetheless, the

important step towards censorship and the basically the court route

in in a 5 to 4 majority in favor of

near and reverse and the injunction against him.

So this basically says that Junior basically one and had

a 5 to 4 voiding.

So basically five people were for him which had the

majority voting and so he ended up going free because

they saw that he didn't violate anything and he was

actually on the right.

So for dissenting opinions, um Justice Butler, the majority opinion

to have too much power away from the States and

left them powerless to warn or prevent publishers against circulating

malicious content, which may cost a public nuance in his

opinion. The First Amendment does not stand to protect militias,

contact and Justices Van de bonte, Mack, Reynolds and Souder

conquered with this opinion.

So basically a lot of people who were on the

opposite sides were like, oh, he was just having bad

thoughts and he didn't really want to people to speak

freely. He just wanted to go against this case, which

would allow a lot of other publishing companies to basically

publish things that they've like hidden for years, which would

talk bad about people or officials in Minnesota.

And so that's what like the dissenting opinions were thinking.

And so for the importance of the case was that

the Supreme Court established the First Amendment theory rejecting prior

restraint and nervous is Minnesota and developing not only the

14 Amendment, it included also the First Amendment in the

United States.

Near was also one of the most important issues on

journalistic freedom that the Supreme Court had ever heard.

Following that it became evident that the bar on prior

restraint, which is at the heart of the First Amendment,

extended to both state and federal government.

So basically how important was this case?

Was that basically a lot of people to have that

aspect of freedom and that they can basically talk about

the issues that they feel important about because in certain

states, they basically numbed it down and made laws that

wouldn't allow people to have that freedom of speech or

have that sense of power that they needed in order

to voice their opinion.

And so the relevancy, um I think that this case

still remains crucial in today's world, especially um in the

world that we live in, where social media is definitely

very prevalent and definitely people exercising their right of speech

is important.

So I definitely think that this case is still relevant

in today's society and I have my we're excited.

Um thank you so much for watching.

Um I hope you had a glimpse of what the

case was about.

Um I really enjoyed, I'm researching about this case because

it was something that um really was interesting to study

about. So yeah, thank you.

Near V Minnesota (1931)

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated