Landmark Cases 5
Landmark Cases
Shawnette Howard
SNHU
2/13/2022
Landmark cases have been able to shape the development of freedoms in the idea that freedom of speech has continuously been put in check to ascertain whether there is a need for improvement or not. If so, they outline the steps to be lawfully followed to ensure these freedoms are not manipulated to undermine their importance within a legal bracket. Some of the landmark cases that impacted digital communication in a significant manner are New York Times v Sullivan, Reno v. ACLU, and Brandenburg v Ohio.
Reno v. ACLU
The Reno v. ACLU case involved an assessment of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This case provided the needed criminal course of action against any individual that used the internet to transfer obscene messages, which are general messages that are indecent (Marano, 2017). This was explicitly when the transferor the message itself involved a minor (A person under 18 years). Therefore, Congress came up with an agreeable vote to pass the Communications Decency Act to curb the issue of pornography. CLU, however, argued that the act contained elements of unconstitutionality (Djavaherian, 1998). And it was based on this argument the supreme court ruled the act as a violation of the First Amendment right to speech. The idea behind this argument was that it was a content-based restriction.
The case brought changes in the communication industry. One of the major supreme court cases directly linked the past of communication, especially in the digital platform, to the future. Arguably, any court ruling may have an upside as well as a downside, especially if it involves opening the doors to freedoms but limiting some notions of morality. The case made a solid ground from which the law recognized the freedom of speech; from this case, the freedom was further given a broader scope to work on. It is also worth considering that this case ushered in the idea of self-expression without limiting oneself to what others find as right. The case allowed people to act in their capacity; this was the basic foundation of freedom of speech for future generations.
New York Times v Sullivan
The case was mainly a prominent aspect of promoting freedom of speech. The case created a platform from which newspapers could go in-depth and chase a story irrespective of where it took them. Sullivan sued the New York Times for defamation in an ad by the Newspaper. However, the Newspaper argued that they did not desire to tarnish Sullivan's identity when the ad was posted. An Alabama court awarded Mr. Sullivan $500,000 worth of damages to be paid in good time by the New York Times (Wasserman, 2012). The Newspaper, however, made an appeal in the supreme court, in which case the supreme court declared that the case would favor the Newspaper. This was because for the suit to stand, Mr. Sullivan would have to prove that the Newspaper intentionally used information that would cause harm to his Image. In this aspect, he was unable to.
The case's ruling was an important landmark in digital communication. It changed the media industry since it provided media personalities with the right tools to go after stories, especially ones related to influential and powerful people. Through this ruling, the freedom of speech, especially in publication, was ensured since people could now communicate without fear of prosecution so long as such information is in line with the idea of no purposeful intention to harm the subject of the publication. Finally, it is essential to recognize that the ruling was a stepping stone that ensured that publications in different platforms such as digital platforms remained free of influence by fear. This helps future digital publications to have the backing needed as they make strides in story narration.
Brandenburg v Ohio
Brandenburg v Ohio was a case heard in 1969. The case became an important benchmark because it involved the interpretation of the First Amendment rights by the Supreme court. Brandenburg had been convicted and given a 10years sentence and a fine by a state court in Ohio (Field 2018). The state appellate court affirmed this conviction. However, the supreme court took to overrule the conviction since it was interpreted that the first amendment stands in cases where speech was used to advocate an illegal act as long as it is not likely to create imminent lawlessness. These key details created the ideal environment for people to voice their opinions on different platforms.
The case is a landmark since it allows different individuals to portray their opinions. The idea behind this landmark is that it created a reasonable approach through which people can express their opinion within the criteria that it does not directly apply pressure on people to perfume illegal acts. The Digital platforms have particularly embraced this aspect of the law because such platforms contain people with diverse views. Therefore, there is the rational expectation that at some points, different individuals would react differently in the aspect of what they say and how they say it. The case also helped shape the room for future protests, especially those done on digital platforms.
Best legal Practice
There must be ideal practices that can govern the freedom of speech and the First Amendment rights of each individual using any digital platform. The first Practice would be to avoid sharing obscene materials on such platforms; this would ensure that some kind of moral code remains in the daily activities conducted digitally. Secondly, it would be an excellent legal practice to consider the type of messages we post about other people since this would ensure that the issue of defamation is not a consequence of our actions. Generally, keenness when writing about other people would be essential to consider; this promotes respecting rights and freedom. Lastly, as an ideal practice, it would be important that each individual creates messages that do not cause harm or damage to those around them to trigger a violent act, either in the workplace or outside the workplace. The power of digital messaging could be a tool to create harmony, yet it could also be abused to limit other people's rights; it is, therefore, important that these practices be put in place.
References
Djavaherian, D. K. (1998). Reno v. ACLU. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 13, 371.
Field, M. A. (2018). Brandenburg v. Ohio Its Relationship to Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten. Ariz. St. LJ, 50, 791.
Marano, J. G. (2017). Caught in the Web: Enjoining Defamatory Speech that Appears on the Internet. Hastings LJ, 69, 1311.
Wasserman, H. M. (2012). A jurisdictional perspective on New York Times v. Sullivan. Nw. UL Rev., 107, 901.