COMM 317: Questions for reading "Make No Law"

Consulting "Make No Law" and the Internet, please answer the following questions on the historical chapters about constitutional law. They are designed to get you skim-reading through the chapters to pick out some of the main points more quickly than you would if you tried to read them all word-for-word. Post to your blog. As you answer the questions, give the page number from "Make No Law" in parentheses and link to your online sources. (See example at the bottom of this post.) The questions are:

1. What do freedom fries, liberty cabbage, the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 have in common? What effect, if any, do they have on freedom of speech? On the freedom of the press?

2. What specific things did people say about 18th-century politicians that got them prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Acts? How do they compare to political discourse today? Were they harsher, milder or about the same? How many current statements about U.S. presidents and former presidents -- and presidential candidates -- can you list that could be prosecuted if the Alien and Sedition Acts were still in force?

3. For each of the court cases below, give the facts of the case, the issue of law and a good quote from the opinion or dissent that sums up its importance to journalists working today. See my example below, summarizing a case we haven't gotten to yet. Please consider these cases:

a. Abrams v. United States.
b. Whitney v. California.
c. Near v. Minnesota.

Example
Falwell v. Flynt (1988). Facts: The Rev. Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, for a parody ad that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia delicately describes as showing a "drunk[en] Falwell having an incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse." Law: Falwell's lawsuit said the parody held him up to public ridicule, libeled him and inflicted emotional distress. Flynt argued Falwell was a public figure, and the parody was clearly marked so nobody would take it seriously. The court decided in Flynt's favor. Quote: Chief Justice William Rhenquist said Falwell was a public figure who was involved in politics, and therefore could be satirized even though the satire might be distressing. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events -- an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal" (Wikipedia). Rehnquist also said, "But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment" (232).