Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota
Transcript of Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota
![Page 1: Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070600/58a64d891a28ab6e368b60cd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Near Vs Minnesota
![Page 2: Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070600/58a64d891a28ab6e368b60cd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070600/58a64d891a28ab6e368b60cd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Background • Freedom of the Press is a fundamental right of Americans. However, it
was not fully established until 1931 with the landmark ruling in Near v. Minnesota.
• The First Amendment supposedly protects the Press from unnecessary govt intervention
• Sensationalistic newspapers in Minnesota provided the alleged financial and sexual offenses of prominent politicians and community leaders = angered the public.
• Led to the Minnesota Gag Law 1925• Prevented publishing, as a public Nuisance, of a "malicious, scandalous
and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical."
![Page 4: Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070600/58a64d891a28ab6e368b60cd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Dilemma
• Near's newspaper, The Saturday Press, was tinged with anti-Semitism, anti-labour, and anti-Catholic sentiments!
• Because of this hateful speech, Near was taken into custody by the state police.
• Near appealed by stating that his publication was not criminal in nature and that his arrest violated his 1st Amendment rights.
![Page 5: Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070600/58a64d891a28ab6e368b60cd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Probably how Near felt!
Probably how the minorities
felt!
![Page 6: Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070600/58a64d891a28ab6e368b60cd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Court Ruling
• The Hughes Court ruled in favour of J.M. Near in 1930
• 5-4 = narrow margin! • Minnesota Gag law declared a direct violation of
the 1st Amendment • Chief Justice Charles Hughes stated that there
was "no doubt" that freedom of the press and freedom of speech were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause
![Page 7: Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070600/58a64d891a28ab6e368b60cd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Exemplar Landmark Case - Near v Minnesota](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070600/58a64d891a28ab6e368b60cd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Impact
• Near was a landmark case because it applied 1st Amendment's freedom of the press and freedom of speech provisions to state government actions through the Fourteenth Amendment!
• The case announced a principle that has defined freedom of the press.
• Editors and publishers know they are free to print their stories about public officials without fear of state censorship.