The First Amendment is perhaps the most well-known among Americans. It guarantees us all the right to free speech. It also guarantees that nobody, state official or otherwise, will stand in the way of our freedom of press, as stated by Thomas J. Curry in his book “The First Freedoms: Church and State in America and the Passage of the First Amendment” (2005). It can be argued that Nancy Jamison was exercising both of her rights protected under the First Amendment of the United States on the night that she posted these terrorist threats (2005). To prosecute her for publishing information that she came by freely would be to prosecute her for being American.
In the United States, by way of the First Amendment, Prior Restraint is not condoned. One may not be silenced before they have spoken. Appropriate measures can be taken after one says their piece but these measures are only within the law, constituting things such as libel or slander, according to a report by Dawn C. Nunziato entitled “How (Not) To Censor: Procedural First Amendment Values and Internet Censorship Worldwide” (2011). Jamison committed neither of these crimes when she shared the information she was given by a Homeland Security Employee. William Blackstone also mentioned in his commentaries, called, “Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology - From the Framing to Today” that, in regards to freedom of speech, a person should never be punished for writing or speaking the truth as long as the motive are good and the ends are justifiable (2012). I think Jamison’s motives were entirely good when she posted about the potential terrorist activity. As a well-known blogger she knew it would possible save lives.
Jamison’s general concern for her fellow humans is what is most relatable and what makes her prosecution the most outrageous. Blackstone said speech should never be punished if the motives were good. Jamison had the best intentions when she posted the information she was given; she was on a mission to save lives. Alerting as many people as possible to a potential threat meant possibly avoiding a repeated offense on a day that is difficult for the entire country to endure. Though it may have caused Homeland Security difficulty because the information was leaked, the fault is on the employee, not an innocent citizen doing her civic duty.
In sum, prosecuting Jamison would be preposterous. The First Amendment is enough to show that she did nothing wrong in warning people. Prior Restraint is illegal in the United States, meaning she was ultimately able to publish whatever she wanted to. Actions to be taken after are limited and she did not slander anybody with the information she posted. Coupled with the fact that she was merely performing a civic duty in warning those around her about a possible tragedy it is clear that she cannot but blamed for this, nor prosecuted.
References
Curry, T. J. (2005). The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunziato, D. C. (2011). How (Not) To Censor: Procedural First Amendment Values and Internet Censorship Worldwide. HeinOnline.
Volokh, E. (2012). Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology - From the Framing to Today. HeinOnline.
