Question 1. The First Amendment is clear in its protection of the freedom of expression: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” However, only Justices Black and Douglas have ever adhered to a literalist interpretation of the Freedom of Expression Clause. All other justices have been willing to place some restrictions on the freedom of expression. Discuss the evolution of standards the Court has used to adjudicate freedom of expression from Schenck to Brandenburg. In your answer, explain why the Court has not adhered to a single position, changing standards depending on the circumstances of the case. Why has the Court been more willing to restrict freedom of expression in certain times and has allowed more liberal standards at other times? Are you satisfied with the standards that the Court has provided? Do you feel that the standards should be more or less precise, allowing for more or less freedom in interpreting the standard? Why?

Question 2: Despite the fact that the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law “…abridging the freedom…of the press,” the Supreme Court has recognized the need to limit the press in certain instances. Explain the Court’s willingness to place restrictions on the press, and under what circumstances such restrictions are warranted. Also, discuss the distinctions made by the Court between different types of media. Is the Court more or less willing to restrict the First Amendment rights of radio, TV, or print journalism? How has the Court dealt with the issue of prior restraint? In what circumstances is prior restraint allowed?