The Sedition Act

In response to the French foreign threat, Congress and President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798. The Sedition Act stated that anyone who “shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States” could be convicted and fined or imprisoned. Madison stated in the Virginia Resolutions and Thomas Jefferson argued in the Kentucky Resolutions that this was a clear infringement upon freedom of the press. On the other hand, federalist states, such as Massachusetts claimed the

This law stated that a judge could issue an injunction preventing the future publication of periodicals determined to be lewd, obscene, or scandalous. J.M. Near, the published of the Saturday Press was prosecuted under this law due to stories about police corruption in 1931. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the law in Near’s case, paving the way for the Supreme Court case which, in a 5-4 decision, stated that there was “no doubt” freedom of speech and freedom of the press were guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against actions by state and local governments. In this ruling, Chief Justice Hughes also stated that libel charges could be brought up against Near, as the Blackstone interpretation of the First Amendment applied, even though Holmes disagreed with this interpretation. Near v. Minnesota selectively incorporated freedom of the press under the Fourteenth Amendment, but, even with Holmes on the Court, upheld the Blackstone interpretation allowing subsequent punishment for

Minnesota prohibited prior restraint of publication, it declared that prior restraint was constitutional in rare cases, such as the “publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number or location of troops.” When The New York Times, and later The Washington Post, published a series of articles containing “Top Secret -- Sensitive” history of the Vietnam War, the United States Attorney General forbade the newspapers from publishing any further information on the topic, claiming the Pentagon Papers were “Top Secret documents vial to the national defense” and consequently not protected by the First Amendment. The lawyers for the Times argued that while certain information, such as troop movements, probably justifies censorship, the secrets in the Pentagon Papers starkly contrast the sensitivity of troop movements. This case found differing responses from courts at all levels. In Washington, the judge of the Washington Federal District denied the government’s request to censor the Post while the judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District reversed that decision, placing a temporary restraint on the Post. In New York, Judge Murray Gurfein, in his first case, vindicated the Times, but the judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed to restrain the paper for at least a week. Both appealing to the Supreme Court, the future of First Amendment interpretation laid in the hands of the opposing lawyers: “if publication of