Question:
Answer:
This paper discusses various cases in relation during the period of late 80s and early 90s in which the issue was related to the freedom of speech. The paper would also depict the political, social and economic condition of the country during the period based on the decision of the courts in these cases. The paper discusses five cases which had been ruled by the Supreme Court where the decision of the lower court was either over turned and a writ of certiorari was issued or the decision had been upheld
In the case of Hector Lopez v New York Police Department 1993 action had been commenced by the petitioner to overturn the denial by the NYPD with respect to his request for freedom of information law. A cross move had been filed by the NYPD towards dismissing the claim based in the argument that adequate search criteria had not been provided by the petitioner and a negative result had been yielded through a diligent request. In the case it was adjudged by the court that the petition is not allowed without prejudice. It was further ordered by the court that the cross motion of the NYPD to dismiss the appeal had been granted and the proceedings are dismissed without any prejudice to a supplemental or new request in accordance to the terms of the decision.
In the case of Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) the defendant Johnson burned an American Flag outside of the convention center. At the center the Republican National Convention of 1984 was being held in Dallas Texas. The flag had been burnt by the defendant in protest of the policies and procedures which have been implemented by President Ronald Reagan. The defendant had been arrested for the charge of breaching a Texas statue which opposed the desecration of any venerated object which included the American flag in case it was done to incite anger in the public. The defendant had been tried and convicted of the offence by a Texas court. An appeal had been made by Johnson in which he argued that his actions were “symbolic speech” and therefore had protection of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case. The issue before the court in this case was that whether the burning of a flag constituted a “symbolic speech” which was protected by the first Amendment. The judges of the Supreme Court based on the principles of freedom of speech ruled that actions which may be offensive to the society may be protected by the freedom of speech even if the act is outrageous for the society. Thus the court ruled that the brining of the flag constituted a “symbolic speech”.
In the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) the United States Supreme Court had rejected crime ordinance and over turned the conviction of a teenager who is referred in the court as R.A.V who had burnt a cross on a lawn of a African American family. The court held that the teenager had not violated the protection provided in relation to the freedom of speech by the first amendment. In the petitioner and several other teenagers and built a cross with the help of a broken chair. The cross was erected and burnt in the yard of an African American family who resided across the house of the petitioner. A charge was put on the defendant for breaching the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance. The court provided the decision in favor of the petitioner and ruled that the act was protected by the freedom to speech.
In the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) a landmark decision had been provided by the Supreme Court in relation to freedom of speech in public schools. The petitioner had been suspended from school for making a speech which included sexual double entendres. It was held by the Supreme Court that the first amendment was not violated by the first amendment. The student went through the grievance procedure of the school but his speech was still adjudged as vulgar and offensive. The Supreme Court overturning the decision provided by the court of appeal ruled that the policy of the school of suspending the student was not against the rights provided by the first amendment.
In 2 Live Crew (1990) Skyywalker Records, Inc. V. Navaroo it was ruled by the south Florida district court provided that the action of the sheriff was an unconstitutional restriction upon the freedom of speech. The judgment of the district court had been appealed by the live crew in the 11th circuit court of appeals and argued that the district court did no properly apply the miller test. Obscene was defined as what is related to sex in an offensive way, disgusting to the sense and so excessive as to be offensive. In the initial judgment was made by the county court based on Florida statue §847.011. It was ruled by the district court that the album was obscene after the application of the Miller test. The question before the court was that whether the album has serious artistic, literary and political value. It was also to be determined by the court that whether as a whole the album appeals to prurient interest when relevant community standards are applied.
According to the decisions in the above discussed cases which were primarily decided in the late 80s and the early 90s the Social, Economical and political situation can be discussed. At that time a lot of emphasis was provided in the legal aspect of case rather than the political social or economic aspects. This is because all the decisions which had been made by the court were primarily based on legal aspects of the freedom of speech. Significant freedom had been provided by the first amendment in relation to the freedom of speech. In one case it was seen that bring or a flag was not considered as a violation of law which clearly depicts that emphasis was not put on political condition of the time by the courts.
References
2 Live Crew (1990) Skyywalker Records, Inc. V. Navaroo
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
Lopez v NYPD (1993)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
