Online Print Media

The New York Times has a website that provides news articles about the United States and all around the world. Not only are there factual articles but there are also a wide variety of editorials. I trust that The New York Times provides accurate information. It acts as a good source for people who don't have much knowledge about recent political actions. Because the use of technology has become more and more abundant all over the US, it is almost essential for newspapers to start publishing online. This has had a positive impact on the public because there are also many people who aren't willing to pay for or can't afford a newspaper subscription. It is important that the public is well aware of what is going in both their own nation and all over the world.
Here is an article written by Dale Carpenter, expressing his opinions about gay marriage. It is helpful for people to have such easy access to editorials so that they can understand the views of others and then form their own opinions.

Political Commentary on Television

There are many television news shows that aren't at the same level of seriousness as the news shows on CNN or CBS. Shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are mostly making fun of the political drama taking place everyday. Most find it amusing and entertaining but there are still those who don't take the jokes lightly and may be offended. These shows provide news updates but they shouldn't be considered a valuable or reliable source of information. It is important that the people watching these shows understand that these reporters aren't serious and that for better information they should watch reports from CNN or CBS. The more amusing shows have had a positive impact not only by being entertaining but they also give some form of an update to those who don't bother to watch the serious news reports. Comedians like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert do a great job attracting younger people into the world of politics.
Here is a video clip from Stephen Colbert's "The Colbert Report." He is making fun of the obsession people have had over President Obama's birth certificate.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
America Needs to See Obama's Report Cards
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Daniel Ellsberg, a political scientist working for the Pentagon, stole classied papers called, “The Pentagon Papers.” He then gave these documents to The New York Times, which began publishing them. Just a couple days later, the government was granted an order to stop the publishing of these papers. The case was quickly appealed to the US Supreme Court. The question was: Could the government prevent the publication of materials because they could be endangering national security?

The Court’s decision was issued per curiam. This means that the decision came from the Court as whole, rather than there being one writer for the opinion, all nine justices wrote their own opinion. Justice Hugo L. Black wrote that he felt the whole reason behind “freedom of the press” in the First Amendment was so that the press could let out government secrets and inform the people. Justice William O. Douglas agreed and added that there is nothing barring the press from publishing this kind of information. I agree with the Court’s decision for this case. Justice Black’s argument makes perfect sense. Today there a lot of information gets leaked to the public. It is as if the freedom of the press keeps the government on its toes and prevents it from committing any acts of corruption. If the government could control everything that gets published, there would be much more “behind the scenes” things taking place.  

This case is often compared to Wikileaks, which is a company responsible for leaking much government information to the public. This video discusses the similarities and differences between these two situations.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for violating the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act. This Act prohibited speaking, teaching, advising, printing, pblishing, circulating, selling, distributing or publicly displaying of organized anarchy. Gitlow was caught teaching the necessity to overthrow the government and he made two publications based off of the Communist Manfiesto. This case deals with the issue of whether or not the First Amendment’s protections of press and free speech are included in the Fourteenth Amendment, which then makes them applicable at state level.
With a 7 to 2 vote, the Court decided to approve Gitlow’s conviction. I don’t think I completely agree with this ruling. We are given the right to free speech and free press. I don’t see why it is okay for the government to censor or simply remove people’s publications or teachings for self-preservation. Our government is unique in that the citizens are allowed to freely express what they want. If the government always removed anything that seemed threatening, it would become oppressive.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

This case represents a collection of cases all dealing with a similar issue. It was the issue of black children being denied admission to the public white schools. This goes back to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 which determined that having separate but equal facilities for white and colored people does not go against the guaranteed equal protection laws in the Fourteenth Amendment.
This time the Court unanimously decided that the separate but equal schools do go against the equal protection clause. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore we hold that the plaintiffs…are, by reason of the segregation complained of deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” I am glad that the Court came to this conclusion, as it should have back in 1896 with the Plessy v. Ferguson case. I suppose that that was a different situation since it wasn’t dealing with education, but I still feel that it was of similar principle. No matter how equal the schools are or seats on a train, there should be no segregation at all.

This video discusses the involvement of young people in the fight for racial equality.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Earl Gideon planned to rob a Florida pool hall but was caught while breaking in. He could not afford his own attorney for his trial and the court refused his request for a court-appointed official. Florida would only provide free counsel for capital cases. Gideon pleaded not guilty and tried to defend himself. He was unsuccessful and was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Gideon submitted a petition to the US Supreme Court to accept his appeal. The Court accepted the appeal and appointed Abe Fortas as Gideon’s attorney.
The Court examined the decision that was made for the Betts v. Brady case in 1942. For this case the Court had decided that the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment did not require the guarantee of counsel in criminal cases, which is stated in the Sixth Amendment.
The Court came to a unanimous decision in favor of Gideon, which overturns the decision that was made in 1942 for Betts. Chief Justice Black explained that a person can’t be given a fair trial without some sort of counsel present for them. I agree with the decision the Court came to. Everyone deserves to have some sort of defense no matter what their financial situation is. If only those who could afford lawyers had them in court, our country would be ruled by the rich. The framers of the constitution aimed for everyone to have equal opportunity in this country. Because of this case, everyone is appointed an attorney if they are unable to afford their own. Without counsel and both sides of a case, the trial couldn’t be fair.

Here is an informational video about the details of Clarence Earl Gideon.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The decision for the Miranda case was actually for four different cases that were dealing with extremely similar constitutional issues. Each of them involved people who were convicted based on the confessions they made after long periods of interrogation and without being informed of their right to remain silent and counsel. Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix, Arizona police and was accused of kidnapping and rape. He was never informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney. After much interrogation, he signed a written confession. Miranda appealed to the US Supreme Court based on the Fifth Amendment, that nobody shall have to be a witness against themselves for any criminal case. The main question was: Under what conditions can an interrogation take place that will produce a confession suitable for the Court?
With a 5 to 4 vote the Court decided to set Miranda free. Chief Justice Earl Warren explained that Miranda was put in an unfair situation. When someone is taken into custody they must be informed of their rights. Warren also expressed concern for the interrogation process. He felt that many defendants are put into such an emotional and pressuring situation that they are unable to practice rational judgement. Warren wrote that the Court's decision is also an effort to get rid of the pressures that defendants face when interrogated and limit self-incrimination. Although Miranda was probably guilty, I feel that the Court made the right decision. The interrogation process is quite brutal and it is important that it is addressed by the court.

Here is a silly cartoon that explains how the Miranda rights were recognized and what happened to Ernesto Miranda after the case.