- This case problem pertains to the right to protest, petition and assembly. These are rights safeguarded by the First Amendment of constitution.
- Various legal rules apply to this section of media laws. Firstly, the constitution protects all forms of expression in traditional ‘public forums’. These include parks, streets and sidewalks. Expression is protected in other locations that are opened up by the government for unrestricted public speech. These locations of unrestricted public speech include areas such as the plazas or space in front of federal buildings. Picketing in traditional ‘public forums’ is also protected by the constitution without the necessity of a permit. However, this can only be done in a non-disruptive and an orderly manner that does not block the use of sidewalks or entrance into buildings. The right to petition is also protected under the constitution (Pember & Calvert, 2013).
This allows citizens to petition local authorities or the government in order to seek redress for certain grievances. This was set by a precedent in the California Motor Transport co. V. Tracking Unlimited where the Supreme Court found this right to extend to government departments. In order to determine whether the city should allow the protest, it is important to apply the legal rules to the facts in the case problem. In the case problem, the veterans planned protests in order to petition for the redress of slow services. The veterans planned to demonstrate in traditional ‘public forums’, an action protected by the constitution. As such, the planned protests were protected by the constitution (Pember & Calvert, 2013).
- The actions of the veterans to burn flags of the United States are found under the flag desecration section. Various precedents have been set regarding the lawfulness or otherwise of burning the American flag. While most of these precedents outlawed such acts, it is the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Texas V. Johnson that sets the precedent, protecting such acts under the First Amendment. In their ruling, The Supreme Court found such actions as amounting to symbolic political speech (Pember & Calvert, 2013).In this regard, the veterans who took part in burning the American flag should not have been arrested.
- The matters enshrined in this case problem can be found in the freedom of speech and press. The freedom of press can be restricted on some cases. The source of law that affords a judge to ban a publication is found in the time, manner and place restrictions. Several rules apply under this source of law.
- Firstly, any restrictions on the freedom of press must be content-neutral. Additionally, such restrictions must be designed narrowly so that only serves a significant interest pursued by the government. Finally, such restrictions on the freedom of the press should ensure that other sufficient means of communication are left at the disposal of the concerned parties (Pember & Calvert, 2013).In his ruling the judge should find for the editor and uphold the right to publish.
- Firstly, the restriction would not be content-neutral. This is because the justification given by the public health director in his capacity as a government employee is not neutral to the content. Additionally, the interest that the public health director seeks is not so significant as to supersede the right of the public to be informed on the health risks inherent in their community. Finally, the restrictions sought by the public health director do not leave other media through which such information can be communicated. In this regard, the judge should find for the editor and allow the publication to continue.
References
Pember, D. & Calvert, C. (2013). Mass media law. New York. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
