In 1974, Brooker T. Hillery Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile, four Californian prison inmates, and Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs, three journalists, filed a lawsuit against Raymond K. Procunier, the Director of the California Department of Corrections. The suit was filed in regards to the constitutionality of the California Department of Corrections Manual Regulation 415.071. The manual regulated that the press and media could not specify particular inmates to be interviewed. However, the regulation did allow random inmates to be interviewed by the media. This regulation was passed following a brutal prison incident that officers believed was the result of allowing specified prisoner and press interviews. The Procunier case is whether the California Department of Corrections’ restriction on media-inmate interviews is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the California Department of Corrections ban was constitutional and did not violate the inmates’ rights of free speech. Furthermore, the regulation did not violate the media’s right to access information within a correctional Justice Douglas joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall stated that the regulation violates the prisoners’ and the press’ First Amendment rights. However, Justice Stewart, Justice Burger, Justice Powell, Justice White, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist stated in their dissent prohibiting face-to-face interviews was not unconstitutional and that restricting inmate visitation allowed inmates to communicate with people who could aid in their rehabilitation, but can be restricted when the security of the institution is at risk, referencing Chief Justice Warren in Zemel v. Rusk (Pell v. Procunier, n.d.). The court also stated that the media’s amendment rights were not violated. Journalists are free to visit maximum and minimum institutions and to talk to inmates and interview inmates selected at random, different than members of the general public. The court indicated that “The First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally” (2013). Pell v. Procunier is a significant case in corrections as it confirms that denying media interviews with inmates does not violate the inmates’ or journalists’ constitutional rights, as long other means of communication, such as mail and visitation, are permitted. This case controlled the First Amendment rights of the inmates and the media, but the court justified it because it reduced the rights
Publication bans have been a part of the Criminal Code since 1988. A publication ban is a court law that prohibits trial information from leaving the case. Since these bans were first introduced in Canada, they have become a very useful tool in Common Law. These bans have been frequently used over the years for many purposes including avoiding the risk of adverse consequences to participants and for more accurate trial procedures. Having publication bans are beneficial, in every which-way, than not. These bans contribute positively to the environment of law and most importantly, the society within. This essay will outline why the court should have the right to impose a publication ban in Canada. It will support the debate that if Canada wishes to build towards a reputation of having trials handled efficiently, then it should not change the nature of these publication bans. It will portray the importance of these bans through a thorough explanation of how the bans work, and two solid arguments of the cause on the society and environment. First, this essay will discuss basics of publication bans and how they work. Then, this essay will point out how publication bans contribute to trial fairness in the court. Finally, this essay will touch upon how publication bans protect victims and those involved in the trials.
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Attempt by Congress to strike a balance between society's need for protection from crime and accused right to adequate proce...
Outside the courthouse in Newton, Georgia, in the early hours of January 30, 1943, Robert “Bobby” Hall was beaten unconscious by M. Claude Screws, Frank Edward Jones, and Jim Bob Kelley[1] while in their custody for the alleged theft of a tire;[2] Screws, Jones and Kelley were, respectively, Baker county sheriff, night policeman, and a civilian deputized specifically for the arrest.[3] Without ever recovering consciousness, Hall died as a result of a fractured skull shortly after his arrival at an Albany hospital that morning.[4] The NAACP and FBI investigated Hall’s death in the following months and federal charges were brought against Screws, Jones, and Kelley for violation of Section 20 of the Federal Criminal Code, which stipulates that no person may “under color of any law … willfully” deprive a person of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”[5] After being found guilty in the lower courts, the defendants brought their case to the Supreme Court on appeal, alleging that they had violated a state rather than federal law and, consequently, could not be held liable under Section 20. The Supreme Court’s central concern in Screws et al. v. United States was to interpret the intent and breadth of Section 20 in order to judge its constitutionality; in doing so, the Court struggled to reach a consensus regarding the definition of state action and the indefinite nature of the rights protected by the statute. Such consensus proved difficult, indeed, as the case was narrowly decided and divided the Court along deep constitutional lines; while a majority of the Court advocated reversal of the lower co...
Civilrights.org. (2002, April 13). Justice on trial. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference on Civil RightsEducation Fund. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from Civilrights.org Web site: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/
In Supreme Court cases, it is difficult to determine which side the judges will rule because the cases are often very controversial. The Constitution and one’s rights need to be protected, and if it goes against the Constitution, the consequences will not be agreed upon. As a result, in Holmes’ analysis, it ultimately brings to light the importance of results often being black and white, but they truly aren’t. The public still has a long way to go in not only understanding the law, but also the reasons why judges make these different decisions. But the most important thing is that the U.S. Constitution is always followed.
The Bill of Rights is a document that stands as law in all 50 United States and protects the citizens of the U.S. from various unlawful punishments that would infringe on these rights which are considered universal to all those who legally reside in the country. These amendments are extremely important to us as citizens of the U.S. because they give us a set of guidelines to model our behavior and speech after, as well as allow us to defend ourselves from censorship of various forms that may be cast upon us by government, organizations, or other persons. Just as any law is destined to be tested, the laws set forth in The Bill of Rights have been tested through many court cases tried by the Supreme Court of the United States. These trials serve to clarify the meaning of the law in situations where it's intent is not immediately obvious. Here, we will analyze several court cases and their impact on society, as well as the sociological climate of the populace when these cases were tried.
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
"Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions." Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. .
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
Mauer, Marc. 1999. The Race to Incarcerate. New York: The New Press National Research Council. 1993.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Given from what I have researched for this paper the restrictions on freedom of speech is agreeable. The restrictions are dependent on context and variable situations. From my past experiences, people cannot tell the difference between regular speech and those that inspire aggressiveness. There should be a balance between citizen’s freedoms of speech. An example is that different people should have different levels of freedom of speech. For those who write, print, or speak to the public should have the greatest amount of speech freedom. They should be able to voice out their opinions and fact to the public. Those who have criminal records should have their speech right limited because they will the most likely candidates to spark disorder and endanger public safety. In a different perspective using convicts, we will examine how inmates rights are effected after incarceration. The overall objective needs of a prison is to be secure and at ease. In 1987 Supreme Court Case Turner v. Safley argued that the prison guards were limiting their free speech by not allowing them to send letter mails to each other. The ruling of this case lead to the creation called the “Turner Standard.” The Turner Standard consist of a series of four questions that depicts whether the contents of speech or prison policy is considered constitutional. The four standards are: the policy in question must address a valid issue of prison security or rehabilitation, inmates must have alternate means of communication, courts must consider the impact of speech on other prisoners, guards, and prison resources, and are there other alternatives that would not restrict a prisoner’s freedom of expression. In another Supreme Court case there was a questioning of reading materials in prison library. In this case each prisoner has the right to get readings like books and magazines. The limitations is