Articles tagged with: Rights

Fighting for the Press–Book Review

Date: June 12, 2013 Author: Grant Oster Comments: 3 Replies

When one comes across a headline in the news about the violation of a First Amendment right, the right in question is usually one of speech or religion. The other three freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment–press, petition, and assembly–never seem to get much attention. As the government continues to restrict the people’s rights during the current war on terror, it becomes more and more disheartening to hear of these flagrant abuses and violations. While we fight fervently to protect these two rights (speech and religion), it is important to remember that press is what allows American citizens to be in the know; the press is what keeps the people informed. Without the press there would be no dissemination of information; ergo, no men and women to rally together (assembly), to unite behind one forthright voice–which heard makes known their dissatisfaction, needs, and desires (speech). The press’ investigative journalism has earned the nickname of “the government watchdog” for a reason. The Free Dictionary defines watchdog as: [o]ne who serves as a guardian or protector against waste, loss, or illegal practices.

James Goodale

While cases such as those recently brought against Julian Assange (Wikileaks) and Judy Miller (The New York Times) have attempted to halt the press and scare reporters into divulging their sources, one case in particular set into action a legacy of protection. In 1971, the American press went head-to-head in the ultimate showdown against President Richard Nixon. The press organization that Nixon placed on the chopping block was The New York Times. In what Nixon believed was a matter of “national security,” he demanded that the courts issue prior restraint against the Times and prohibit any further publication of the Pentagon Papers. This would mark the first time that the American government attempted to have a federal court issue prior restraint. While this legal battle was not won by one individual, James Goodale was a major contributor and (for decades to come) would play a key role in guaranteeing the future freedoms of the press.

James Goodale, the author of Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles, served The New York Times as their general counsel in all four of the cases in which the Times tried cases before the Supreme Court. Moreover, he served as a beacon, both in hope and strength, in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). Upon starting his legal career with Lord Day and Lord, in 1959, he also enlisted in the Army Reserve. During his six years in the Reserve, Goodale served as a strategic and intelligence research analyst. This training would greatly influence Goodale in his ability to determine the real worth of “classified” and “top secret” documents. Knowing that the system used to determine how a document should be rubber-stamped was a sham, Goodale was confident in his beliefs and assertive in his stance.

In Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles, Goodale gives a firsthand account of the (literal) trials and tribulations of battling the Nixon administration and the Justice Department. The book fully explains the events leading up to the first publication of the Pentagon Papers, while giving you insightful tidbits that only the keys players had access to. As this case is one of the most prominent in First Amendment constitutional history, the outcome is already known. The book won’t keep you guessing, but offers an intelligent summary of the ins and outs of the case. There were numerous areas in the book which I found enthralling: the process by which the government decided what was deemed “top-secret,” the structure and continued use of journalist’s power of contempt, and the establishment of shield laws. (Just to name a few!) While the majority of the book surrounds New York Times Co. v. United States, the book ends with a summary of recent First Amendment cases. Maybe the most important aspect of the book is its ability to portray the parallels between Nixon’s administration of those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Overall, the book was an informative read. That being said, however, it may be hard to get through if you do not have an interest in legal proceedings, journalism, or First Amendment rights. If U.S. Constitutional history is important to you (which it should be to everyone), or you are considering a career in law or journalism, this book is worth picking up. For more on this book, click on any of the links above to purchase from Amazon or check out information on the publishers page.

Celebrating the Pentagon Papers Victory (L-R) Harding Bancroft, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, A.M Rosenthal, Sydney Gruson, and James Goodale.

Today in History, June 4th!

Date: June 4, 2013 Author: Today in History Comments: Leave a reply

A few of the great historical events that happened today in history, June 4th!

1615	The fortress at Osaka, Japan, falls to Shogun Leyasu after a six-month siege.
1647	Parliamentary forces capture King Charles I and hold him prisoner.
1717	The Freemasons are founded in London.
1792	Captain George Vancouver claims Puget Sound for Britain. George Vancouver
1794	British troops capture Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
1805	Tripoli is forced to conclude peace with the United States after a conflict over tribute.
1859	The French army, under Napoleon III, takes Magenta from the Austrian army.
1864	Confederates under General Joseph Johnston retreat to the mountains in Georgia.
1896	Henry Ford made a successful pre-dawn test run of his horseless carriage, called a quadricycle, through the streets of Detroit.
1911	Gold is discovered in Alaska’s Indian Creek.
1912	Massachusetts became the first state to adopt a minimum wage law.
1918	French and American troops halt Germany’s offensive at Chateau-Thierry, France.
1919	Congress approved the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing citizens the right to vote regardless of their gender, and sent it to the states for ratification.
1940	British complete the evacuation of 300,000 troops at Dunkirk.
1942	The Battle of Midway began during World War II.
1943	In Argentina, Juan Peron takes part in the military coup that overthrows Ramon S. Castillo.
1944	The U-505 becomes the first enemy submarine captured by the U.S. Navy.
1944	The U.S. Fifth Army began liberating Rome during World War II.
1946	Juan Peron is installed as Argentina’s president.
1953	North Korea accepts the United Nations proposals in all major respects.
1954	French and Vietnamese officials signed treaties in Paris according independence to Vietnam.
1960	The Taiwan island of Quemoy is hit by 500 artillery shells fired from the coast of Communist China.
1972	Black activist Angela Davis is found not guilty of murder, kidnapping, and criminal conspiracy.
1984	The album “Born in the U.S.A.” by Bruce Springsteen was released.
1985	The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling striking down an Alabama law providing for a daily minute of silence in public schools.
1986	Jonathan Jay Pollard, a former Navy intelligence analyst, pleaded guilty in Washington to spying for Israel.
1998	A federal judge sentenced Terry Nichols to life in prison for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing.
2009	President Barack Obama addressed the Muslims of the world in a speech in Cairo, saying America has a common cause with Islam and never will be at war with the faith.

Today in History facts are from various sites including, but not limited too: the History Channel, The New York Times, WHG Historynet.com, and HistoryOrb.com.

When America Lost Its Freedom of Speech and Press

Date: March 19, 2013 Author: Grant Oster Comments: 10 Replies

From the inception of the Bill of Rights, trying times have tested the tensile strength of these ten amendments. The First Amendment–I believe–is the first for a reason. It is important and, as citizens, our most powerful weapon.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

While some of these rights had already been violated by unconstitutional laws, Americans wouldn’t see a blitzkrieg attack on their First Amendment rights until World War I and the Red Scare. As American lawmakers decided that the overall safety of American citizens was more important than their First Amendment rights, laws started appearing that hindered freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Some of the first–and more severe–examples of this are below.

Selective Service Act of 1917

Along with authorizing the federal government to raise a national army for its upcoming entry into World War II, the Selective Service Act of 1917 also authorized Congress to jail those who obstructed the draft. If your thoughts or opinions, through speech or press, were considered as attempting to thwart the conscription, you would be arrested for exercising your rights. Many saw this as the government’s attempt to suppress “radical” criticism of policy.

President Woodrow Wilson

Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917

The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 is still enforced today. This act gave President Wilson the power to oversee and restrict trade with countries that the president deems enemies during time of war. While this might not sound like it is infringing on one’s rights, it did. This act not only keeps you from buying cigars from Cuba (the only country still on the restricted list), but during World War I it granted the Postmaster General the power to ban all foreign language letters and publications from United States mail. As a member of the press, your attempts to distribute any foreign language material was prohibited.

Espionage Act of 1917

President Wilson believed that “Authority to exercise censorship over the press … is absolutely necessary to the public safety.” While President Wilson was not grated the blanket censorship he requested with this act, it definitely violated First Amendment rights. This is another act still enforced today, but it has changed slightly over the years. This act, much like the Selective Service Act prohibited actions (including guaranteed First Amendment rights) that might interfere with military options.

Sedition Act of 1918

The Sedition Act of 1918 was one of the most heinous acts enacted by Congress. (At least during this time period.) The Sedition Act forbade ”disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” against the United States government. In the two-year life of this act, more than 2,000 individuals were prosecuted under the Sedition Act before it was repealed.

The United States Judicial system is an invaluable government branch because its main purpose is the defense of Americans’ rights. Looking out for the little guy, minorities, and public interest, the United States Supreme Court is generally praised for keeping the other two branches in check. Unfortunately, during this time period, the separation of powers did not work in favor of the guaranteed rights under the First Amendment. The following are a few of the United States Supreme Court cases that left our freedoms twisting in the wind.

Schenck v. United States

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

This Supreme Court case upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and determined that ”when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” In this case, a man was arrested for mailing out 15,000 leaflets that advocated opposition to the draft. Schenck v. United States will forever be remembered as the case that introduced “clear and present danger.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. offered the following in his opinion:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Abrams v. United States

In Abrams v. United States, individuals were arrested for distributing anti-war leaflets. By doing so, they were charged with inciting resistance to war efforts and urging curtailment of production of essential war materials. Justice John Hessin Clarke claimed that the individuals responsible for the leaflets–which called for a strike–violated the Espionage Act of 1917. He stated that “the manifest purpose of such a publication was to create an attempt to defeat the war plans of the government of the United States, by bringing upon the country the paralysis of a general strike, thereby arresting the production of all munitions and other things essential to the conduct of the war.”

Gitlow v. New York

The last of the major Supreme Court cases, of this time period, which oppressed First Amendment rights was Gitlow v. New York. In this case, Benjamin Gitlow, publisher of “Left Wing Manifesto,” was arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. This manifesto, seen by Justice Edward Terry Sanford as containing “the language of direct incitement,” was in clear violation of the Espionage and Sedition Act. Justice Sanford stated that “a single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smoldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration.” Even though World War I and the Red Scare were over, Gitlow was found guilty and placed back in jail–his First Amendment rights smothered.

Over the years, these prohibitive and oppressive laws and court cases would be repealed and overturned.

Post September 11th, it appears that laws similar to these may be coming back. Both under President Bush and President Obama’s terms in Executive office, I have seen laws passed that instill fear and threaten my First Amendment rights.

The Trial of John Peter Zenger

Date: January 30, 2013 Author: Grant Oster Comments: 2 Replies

The trial of John Peter Zenger is of importance both in the foundation of America’s judicial system and in the detailed list of Freedoms guaranteed to us in the United States Constitution. In 1733, Colonel William Cosby, New York’s new royal governor, was displeased with a ruling handed down by Chief Justice Lewis Morris; thus, he saw it fit to remove Justice Morris from his position. Colonel Cosby then appointed James DeLancey, a crooked crony of Colonel Cosby, to act as the new Chief Justice for New York. Lewis Morris, with some of his like-minded political allies, hired John Peter Zenger to publish articles in his newspaper, the New-York Weekly Journal. The series of articles were created to be critical of Cosby and his administration, to bring light to Cosby’s political corruption.

Trial-zenger-free-press

To say the least, Colonel Cosby was outraged and had his attorney general, Richard Bradley, charge John Peter Zenger with seditious libel. Colonel Cosby claimed that the work of Zenger was “divers scandalous, virulent, false and seditious reflections.” During the primary hearings of the case, John Peter Zenger’s attorney, James Alexander, said that the appointment of James DeLancey as judge would not be fair to his client. Alexander believed DeLancey would be neither impartial nor fair.

As you can guess, that didn’t go over well…

Chief Justice James DeLancey had James Alexander and his co-council disbarred, their names struck from the Council of New Jersey. (Colonel Cosby had already succeeded in having James Alexander’s name removed from the Council of New York.) However, the fight would not end here. While the sheriff of New York, also an appointee of Colonel Crosby, was gathering together a hand-selected jury, Alexander was putting out requests to the most powerful attorneys in the area. Andrew Hamilton, a lawyer from Philadelphia, would answer the call–and pro bono at that!

By definition of libel laws during this time period, there is no question that John Peter Zenger was guilty. Andrew Hamilton presented to the jury that what had been printed about Colonel Cosby was, in fact, true. When Hamilton attempted to offer up evidence, the judge wouldn’t allow it. Hamilton had the following as part of his closing arguments:

But to conclude: The question before the Court and you, Gentlemen of the jury, is not of small or private concern. It is not the cause of one poor printer, nor of New York alone, which you are now trying. No! It may in its consequence affect every free man that lives under a British government on the main[land] of America. It is the best cause. It is the cause of liberty. And I make no doubt but your upright conduct this day will not only entitle you to the love and esteem of your fellow citizens, but every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you as men who have baffled the attempt of tyranny, and by an impartial and uncorrupt verdict have laid a noble foundation for securing to ourselves, our posterity, and our neighbors, that to which nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power (in these parts of the world at least) by speaking and writing truth. (1) (The entire trial transcripts.)

Andrew Hamilton was able to win with “truth as defense,” with a non-guilty verdict from the jury. A March of Liberty summarized it the following way:

“Andrew Hamilton won his case because a jury of New Yorkers asserted the right to decide the entire case–both the facts and the law–and accepted the argument that a truthful statement could not be a libel.” (2)

“[The Zenger Trial]…did set an important political precedent. Andrew Hamilton had discussed the law as it ought to be, under the conditions…A static, unchanging law was inappropriate… (2)

Andrew Hamilton

Do you suppose it is just a coincidence that Gouverneur Morris, known as the “Penmen of the Constitution” and his half-brother Lewis Morris, a signer of the Constitution, were grandsons of the removed Chief Justice Lewis Morris? I think that this relationship played an important role in the passing of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article III of the United States Constitution. These laws allow that judges and justices of the Judicial Branch be appointed to serve “during good behavior,” or for life unless impeached and removed from office. This kept corrupt politicians from removing judges because they didn’t like the outcome of a case.

The Zenger Trial was also essential in establishing the First Amendment, guaranteeing Freedom of the Press; the Fifth Amendment, setting rules for indictment by grand jury and protecting the rights to due process; the Sixth Amendment, protecting the right to a fair and speedy trial, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel; and the Seventh Amendment, providing the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law.

And why are these important?

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson stated to Thomas Paine that,

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson

1) University of Missouri-Kansas City. Trial Record:From Zenger’s A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger (1736) http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengerrecord.html (Date Visited January 30, 2013.)

2) Finkelman, Paul and Urofsky, Melvin. 2011. A March of Liberty:A Constitutional History of the United States. Vol 1, 41.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Date: January 21, 2013 Author: Grant Oster Comments: 12 Replies

The third Monday in January is commonly known as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Martin Luther King Day, or my favorite MLK Day. What you might not know is that many states clump this holiday with their own state’s holiday(s).

The Lorraine Motel / National Civil Rights Museum
(Hankering for History Original Photo)

For instance, today is Lee–Jackson–King Day in Virginia. The state of Virginia uses this day to celebrate not only the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr., but also the memories of Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson. This is not an uncommon practice across the nation. There are several states that have decided that today is not only for Dr. King. In the southern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi, today is a day to celebrate the birth of Robert E. Lee. Whether these southern states intended it as an actual day of remembrance, along with the remembrance of Martin Luther King, Jr., or just an opportunity to spit in the face of the holiday by clumping together an African-American civil rights leader and a General–if victorious– who would have kept King’s people in chains for decades, is unbeknownst to me.

However, there are states who are in the spirit of what King stood for and have marked this day not only as a celebration for Dr. King, but for what he stood for. In Arizona and New Hampshire, today is Civil Rights Day, and in Idaho, it is it Human Rights Day.

This not a post to talk about his excellent work as a non-violence civil rights leader or his expertise in civil disobedience.

This is not a post to call out Dr. King as a plagiarist or an adulterous man; we all fall short.

This is to remind everyone from where we have come, as a nation. I myself was not alive during the civil rights era, but from what I have read and seen, I believe that America is in a better place than it was fifty years ago. Well, maybe not financially, but with today being the second Presidential Inauguration of America’s first black president, you have to admit that America has become more egalitarian.

The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was such a devastating blow to America’s value system that flags across the nation were lowered to half mast. Wall Street closed for the first time in its history for a private citizen. Even George Wallace, one of America’s most notorious segregationist, described the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a “senseless, regrettable act.” (Of course, some would argue that he only regretted not being able to pull the trigger himself…)

I think it was said best by Gandhi, when she stated,

“[King's assassination] is a setback to mankind’s search for light. Violence removed one of the great men of the world.” - Indira Gandhi

Boycott-National-Civil-Rights

I took the opportunity to go by the Lorraine Motel (Now the National Civil Rights Museum) to pay my respects to Martin Luther King. The museum is currently in the middle of making major renovations to the museum/motel. I was a little surprised by what I saw. Read the banner to the right.

Do people really think that the National Civil Rights Museum is here to “celebrate death and violence?” The National Civil Rights Museum’s website has the following on their website as its mission:

“… the Museum exists to assist the public in understanding the lessons of the Civil Rights Movement and its impact and influence on human rights movements worldwide, through its collections, exhibitions, research and educational programs.”

How could you even confuse the two? I understand that $27 million could provide good elsewhere, but come on. There is no way that anyone can actually believe that the museum was established to “celebrate death and violence.”

On a side note, I just finished Hellhound On His Trail, a National Bestseller about the assassination of Dr. King. Check out my book review on it!