Speaking Freely Chapter 1 In this chapter Floyd Abrams discusses the Pentagon Papers Case that starts a series of trial narratives. In 1971 Nixon administration tried The York Times Co. (New York Times Co. v. United States case).
The New York Times Co.
was represented by the legal scholar Alexander Bickel and Floyd Abrams. Floyd Abrams recalls the events of that case when Attorney General John N. Mitchell used Section 793 of the Espionage Act to sue the newspapers for publication of stories related to Pentagon Papers. Abrams claims that section 793 has quite broad wording especially the words that Pentagon Papers could be related to the national defense, or that the Nixon administration has reason to believe that Pentagon Papers could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, to mention a few. Abrams considered that there were several arguments to discuss. Except of the broad wording, there was a probability that Pentagon Papers were used for educational purposes for the wide circles of American citizens. In case this supposition was correct, was the public a person not entitled to receive the information concerning Pentagon Papers? Additionally, Abrams argues that there was no statutory language that could provide authority for prior prohibition to publish the information. Besides, there was no evidence that Mitchell was able to justify prohibition for publications. Secondly, Floyd Abrams dwells that there was no evidence concerning Mitchells reliance on criminal statute in a civil proceeding for preliminary ban for publication.
The Term Paper on The Pentagon Papers Case
In the past, there has always been conflict between the free press and the government. This conflict was very evident in the Pentagon Papers case, also known as New York Times Co. v. United States. Historically, the Supreme Court has disagreed on the limitations that can be placed on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court faced these issues in the case of The New York Times. The newspaper obtained ...
On contrary, he reminds us the Supreme Court precedent that considered all prohibitions for publication of the data in newspapers to be unconstitutional. Finally, Abrams argued that there was another approach to protect the New York Times Co. due to broad wording of the First Amendment. Till June 18, the day of trial, Abrams says that there was no proof to the fact that New York Times publication was able to cause any kind of harm to the war cause. According to the court decision, it was a total vindication of the New York Times. Chapter II Floyd Abrams continues to discuss the Pentagon Papers case and says that after the decision by Judge Gurfein was received, the government insisted and obtained a stay from Judge Irving Kaufman.
The Pentagon Papers was the case very sensitive and it was so close that all the judges believed that publication could do a considerable injury to the country and its safety. However, Abrams underlines the importance of freedom of the press and notes that the American government wasnt authorized to sue the New York Times. Besides, nobody could prove that the New York Times stole these papers or that any other person, who doesnt belong to Times employees, stole them. Nobody could prove that he knows for sure where the papers were gotten. Abrams also proved that the disclosure of these papers couldnt impose any immediate danger or threat to national security. Abrams dwells on Pentagon Papers case and tries to explain that it is vitally important to preserve the freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of expression in the country, where the words freedom of speech are often understood and interpreted historically. He says that information contained in the papers couldnt impair the interest of the country.
Floyd Abrams wants to tell that Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment are the components of fundamental basis of American system of democracy. He empathizes on the fact that this case was further correctly and historically interpreted as the worst possible intrusion on press freedom. The newspapers should serve the purpose that the Founding Fathers so clearly determined in the law. The information should be in a public access and only free and unrestrained press can exist in a democratic society. Chapter III Floyd Abrams continues to discuss the importance of freedom of press and illustrates it by some other examples from his experience. He tells about such cases like Landmark Communications v.
The Research paper on Case Study Aol Time Warner
AOL Time Warner On December 14, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission approved the planned merger of AOL and Time Warner after both companies pledged to "protect consumer choice" both now and in the future. The AOL Time Warner merger was approved by the Federal Communications Commission on January 11, 2001, and is the biggest merger in corporate history, then estimated at a total market value of $350 ...
Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., and Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart. In Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.
Abrams again discusses violation of the First Amendment. According to the West Virginia Statute, a newspaper is not allowed to publish the name of any young person charged as a juvenile offender, unless the juvenile court approves it. There was an incident in Haves Junior High School in St. Albans, where a 14-year-old boy killed his classmate. The Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette published information about the incident. The Daily Mail didnt publish the name of a juvenile murderer because of the statutory prohibition, whereas the Charleston Gazette placed both the name and the picture of the boy.
Further, the name of the boy was publicly broadcasted over several local radio stations. After the name of the murdered became public knowledge, the Daily Mail followed the example of the Charleston Gazette and included the name in the article. Soon after the action was brought against the newspapers as they violated the West Virginia Statute. However, the ruling of the Court was quite unusual as the Court considered that the West Virginia Statute violates the First and the Fourteenth Amendments. Chapter IV The next chapter of the book Speaking Freely is dedicated to an interesting case Wavne Newton v. National Broadcasting Company. Floyd Abrams had to spend several weeks in the city he calls a hell, in Las Vegas city.
So, what was the issue about? Floyd Abrams describes the case as a bestseller-like mafia case about Frank Piccolo, a capo regime from the mafia family Gambino. Frank Piccolo was dealing with gambling and loan-sharking rockets and personally spoke to Gambino once a week in New York City. The FBI recorded a number of conversations between Gambino and Frank Piccolo as FBI got a warrant to monitor and record all Piccolos talks for the sixty-day period. Some of those recorded conversations between Piccolo and a drug dealer Guido Penosi mentioned Wayne Newton. That was the start of the story. FBI was surprised to find out that Wayne Newton had relation to an organized crime authorities, as he was a well-known entertainer, and the undisputed king of Las Vegas according to Peoples Magazine (1980) and Newsweeks opinion. FBI revealed the fact of close relationship between Wayne Newton and Guido Penosi since 1960s.
The Research paper on The Casey Martin Vs Pga Case Study
The Casey Martin vs. PGA Case Study The accommodation of the handicapped people in society, giving them equal opportunities for achieving their goals is a concern of a society. There is no a word in a Constitution that the people with the disabilities may be deprived of any of the rights provided by the Constitution. The case of Casey Martin vs. PGA Tour is a vivid example of the legal collision ...
Floyd Abrams enumerates several facts of their friendship, starting from the events in Copacabana Club, the trip to Los Angeles, Penosis registration with the Las Vegas police, etc. Further, Newton asked Penosi to help him in relation to Backstage affair, when Newtons co-investors asked him to pay them the amount they felt he owned them. Penosi promised too make everything in order to stop the threats. He succeeded. At the same time, Newtons friend and business advisor Mark Moreno also started to receive threats. Moreno came to Newton, Newton sent him to Penosi, Penosi sent Mark Moreno to Piccolo. Further, Piccolo forced Moreno to buy a life insurance for Lola Falana to earn the money off the favors he made to Moreno and Newton.
In 1981 Newton filed a petition against NBC (National Broadcasting Company).
According to Abrams, the process of discovery in the case including motions, pretrial depositions and other things related to discovery was brutal. As a result, the lawyer Morton Galane hired by Newton made each aspect of the proceedings a trial of its own. Abrams was shocked by misbehavior of the opposing counsel as Galanes tactics was revolting. As a result of the process, Newton received compensation of $7.9 million for loss of the past income and more than $1,000,000 for loss of future income. He also obtained compensation for damages to his reputation. The court claimed that the journalists Silverman and Ross were intended to injure Newton and were fined by a considerable amount in punitive damages.
Chapter V In this chapter Floyd Abrams discusses the Heroin Trail case where he represented New York Newsday. This case takes its origin from a series of thirty-two newspaper articles under the title The Heroin Trail. The Heroin Trail project was aimed to explore the trafficking of heroin from Turkey to Long Island. In result of these publications, the Newsday newspaper was awarded by a Pulitzer Prize Gold Medal. The case described by Abrams was the talk of the town for the New York courts. New York authorities issued a law according to which libel actions should be filed within a one-year period after the story that lead to the issue was published.
The Research paper on Case Study 37
Debbie Richardson is in her fourth year at Lamb Consulting and has recently been approached by Susan Gatewick, a project manager for Bob Hachet. Susan confided to Debbie that when she first came to Lamb Consulting she began going to lunch with Bob and frequently spoke with him about personal issues in both of their lives. Bob would give Susan neck rubs and tell her that she was beautiful and Susan ...
Mahmut Karaduman, a Turkish owner of a nightclub was described in the article as a drug dealer who was specialized in smuggling through the Black Sea basin. Although the articles mentioned also other people, he was the only person who filed a lawsuit. According to the law, his lawsuit was filed too late. Abrams mentions that Mahmut Karaduman had read the articles in the spring of 1974. Six years later, the New York State Court of Appeals came back to the issue. The New York Court ….
