RSJ News
Mock Supreme Court smackdown challenges media law students
11-17-2010
Professor Jake Highton debriefs students, after congratulating them for a stellar performance in mock Supreme Court hearings.
By Tammy Krikorian
Attorneys referred to U.S. Supreme Court justices as "you guys" and argued for the First Amendment protection to "talk smack." In a surprise move, justices overturned the historic Pentagon Papers decision that prohibited prior restraint.
Reynolds School students on Wednesday argued four First Amendment cases before a mock U.S. Supreme Court, represented by Justices Dean Jerry Ceppos, Professor Emeritus Warren Lerude and Melody Luetkehans, program attorney for the National Judicial College.
In a courtroom in the National Judicial College, media law students in Ben Holden and Jake Highton's First Amendment and Society classes argued the cases of Near v. Minnesota, New York Times v. Sullivan, Cohen v. California and New York Times v. United States.
The mock justices upheld the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in each of these cases, except for New York Times v. United States, also known as the Pentagon Papers case, in which they sided with the government.
The prior restraint Near v. Minnesota case was argued by Jerri Cuerden and Paul Herget for Jay M. Near and Lindsey Felsch and Jessica Essad for Minnesota.
"This case is not an extreme circumstance," said Felsch, who asked when "talking smack" became a threat to national security.
"We are talking about censoring ideas here, not whether or not these ideas are true or false," Essad said.
Herget countered that, "Although these rights of free speech are fundamental, they are not in their nature absolute," arguing that prior restraint was necessary to protect Minnesotans and keep speech decent.
Justice Ceppos asked how many people read The Saturday Press, which had printed content alleging Jewish gangs were running the Twin Cities.
Cuerden said it was immaterial how many people read the newspaper, what mattered was the language and offensive statements it contained.
In the New York Times v. Sullivan case, about an advertisement that ran in the Times which inaccurately criticized actions of the police in Montgomery, Jamie Ellison argued that L. B. Sullivan, who was the public safety commissioner at the time, was a public figure who "the press has an absolute right to criticize."
"Public officials should not be awarded money unless they prove malice," said Kathy Grimm. "If they are afraid of libel suits, it could hinder them from covering (important issues) such as segregation in the South."
Sullivan co-counselors Brook Gersich and Michon Wynn asked the justices how they would feel if 50 years from now their grandchildren were shown false information about themselves, noting that 650,000 people received the newspaper with the advertisement.
"We believe the Constitution does not protect false information," Wynn said.
At the end of the day, the three justices affirmed three of the four historic decisions. In the Pentagon Papers case, however, the justices ruled 2-1 that the United States had made its case in justifying prior restraint.
Jweek 2012
Wolf Pack Week
Introduction to PR/AD
