NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... found out that since the article was republished in the book by the New American Library, the court can proceed with the lawsuit as the lawsuit corresponds to the law concerning one year bright-line rule. The issue was resurrected. However, the proceeding moved slowly until 1986, when the trial finally began. After twenty four days of trial two jurors said that they will not continue to serve. It resulted to the mistrial and a considerable amount of time and money was spent in vain.
Nevertheless, such pause helped Abrams to master his own strategy and to learn the strategy of opposing counsel. He made all efforts to verify all information concerning the list of traffickers including high-ranking officials. Abrams mentions that he faced two main problems. The first problem was that the journalists were regardless dependent of their sources of information, and, secondly, Karaduman could question the credibility of the journalists as he had several reliable and important witnesses who even denied ever meeting the journalists. As Abrams claims, the main thing was to convince the jury as whom the jury believed will determine the issue. Chapter VI Mccarthivism and Libel.
In this Chapter Abrams tells about the events of the McCarty documentary case. Abrams reminds us about the beginning of the story. He speaks about Helen Whitney, who was a writer and a producer of ABC, American Broadcasting Corporation. She created a theme of program American Inquisition and dedicated it to the influence Mccarthivism made on Fairmont, a town situated in West Virginia. Helen Whitney told about Luella Mundel, the director of the Art department at State College of Virginia. According to Abrams, Luella Mundel had special world outlook that was unusual to the small town in West Virginia.
Luella had her own ideas concerning religion, art and politics. Virginia State College dropped her contract and claimed that she imposed a threat to the security of the town in general and college in particular. Further she was sued for slander. This was the way Luella Mundel was represented by Helen Whitney in the program American Inquisition, Abrams says. It was an impression that Victor Lasky, a conservative columnist, was the main accuser who had caused Luella Mundel to loose her job. The opinion was that ABC corporation gave such impression intentionally.
Victor Lasky was forced to give an interview to the ABC under the pretext of the interview concerning fighting communist during the 1950 s as well as the lectures on Americanism he gave for American Legion. Victor Lasky filed a libel action against ABC News Corporation for this program, American Inquisition. Lasky had to prove whether he had accused Luella Mundel of being a Communist, the fact that led to Luella Mundel's being fired. Abrams tries to involve the reader into difficult process of deciding whether to call to give attestations people, who are so infirm that could be easily influenced by the lawyers of Lasky. In order to win the process, Abrams has to destroy credibility of Victor Lasky and bases his strategy on another incident involving Dalton Thumbs, Victor Lasky and Edward Robinson. Chapter VII Floyd Abrams speaks about the Brooklyn Museum Case, the case that took place in the Eastern District of New York.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Mayor of the City of New York claimed that some of the works exhibited in the Brooklyn Museum as a part of the Saatchi Collection were disgusting and sick. He especially underlined one of the works, The Holy Mary Virgin by Chris Oil. According to Rudolph W. Giuliani, The Holy Mary Virgin was offensive for religious Catholics and insulted their belief. As a result of this accusation, Rudolph W.
Giuliani demanded the money the New York City gave to the Brooklyn Museum to be returned. The second condition was that Brooklyn Museum has to leave its building and to be ejected from the New York owned territories. As Abrams notes, the way of defense was based on the First Amendment. Abrams says that after Rudolph W. Giuliani was called Mayor of the World, he became a different person, an authoritarian Giuliani, a person deeply contemptuous of the First Amendment. According to Abrams, the First Amendment doesnt allow the government discriminating the museum despite the non-conservative, original and controversial nature of the work exhibited.
Abrams claims that the exhibition first took place at the Royal Academy of Art in London, 1997. There it also faced protest and aroused controversial attitude to the nature of the exhibit. It consists of more than ninety works of contemporary artists of Great Britain. Besides, the exhibit took place in Berlin, and after it had to be shown in Brooklyn, it was intended to move to Australian National Gallery and Tokyo museum. The Mayor decided to stop the Museum funding explaining that the Museum doesnt have a right to a State subsidy to desecrate religion. Abrams said that the Museum suffers irreparable injury because of the loss of the First Amendment freedoms.
Finally, he notes that although the Mayor of the City claims that the works of exhibition impose a threat to the feelings of the Catholics, the government should remain neutral to religious expression, whether it displays a religious view or an antireligious one. Chapter VIII In this chapter Floyd Abrams dwells on Campaign Finance Reform and successfully proves that McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform violates the First Amendment. Floyd Abrams tested the constitutionality of the Campaign Finance Reform. BCRA (The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) is a legislation that regulates the financing of various political campaigns. The aim of BCRA was to find solution for several issues: the soft money and its role in financing of political campaigns, the proliferation of issue ads and disturbing campaign practices, to mention a few. Floyd Abrams says that the law implied that the politics is quite expensive and something should be done in order to avoid corruption and to grant fairness to all candidates in order to limit the amount of spending for political campaigns.
According to Abrams, the threat of criminal sanctions will deter and the speech will deter as well. At the same time, none of those results will serve the interests of the First Amendment. Abrams claimed that speech will become less open. Abrams considers that people should be deeply protected by the First Amendment and said that the restrictions of the law deregulate U. A. politics and violates Constitution.
Abrams also says that he learned the difference between soft and hard money. According to him, hard money is money that should be spent on a political campaign and can be given in very limited amounts, and the soft money is money directed at building of a political party. At the same time, he says that it is very difficult to find a difference between these definitions as the definition is very broad. Again, Abrams dwells on the principles of the First Amendment. He says that when few people contribute big amounts to the parties, they can skew the political system in their favor.
Besides, it can not result in restrictions on speech to protect less wealthy contributors. The situation when the government can prohibit or limit the speech of some members of our society to increase the voice of wealthier people definitely conflicts with the First Amendment. He underlines that the principles of First Amendment should prevail despite the legislative solution we choose. Chapter IX Floyd Abrams diligently protects the principles of the First Amendment that guarantee freedom of speech or freedom of the press. He continues to protect the position that the Congress should not issue any law that can impose religion or prohibit its demonstration despite the nature of it. He says that there should be no law that prohibits or limits the freedom of speech, or the press.
Abrams protects the right of American citizens to file petitions and libels to the government when necessary in order to protect their individual freedoms and liberties. There are many ways to interpret the law and the nature of the First Amendment. It created an independent branch of jurisprudence and was subjected to continuous attempts to call it into question or to limit its credibility. Despite the numerous attacks, Floyd Abrams undertakes all measures to protect the principles of the First Amendment. He makes all possible to retain it as one of the columns of American State system.
Floyd Abrams describes trials that expose a compound nature of First Amendment litigation. He offers an unusual description of well-known judges and political figures. For example, he calls the Mayor of New York an authoritative person who is deeply contemptuous with the First Amendment. In the last chapter of the book Abrams dwells on the fate of the privilege of reporter that is closely related to the freedom of speech and freedom of press.
This book can be called a testament to any person who wants to make a career in the law. It is the hymn to the First Amendment that underlines the importance of civil freedoms that are crucial to the success and welfare of the nation.
Free research essays on topics related to: brooklyn museum, campaign finance reform, freedom of speech, political campaigns, first amendment
Research essay sample on Campaign Finance Reform Freedom Of Speech
