The Hypothetical Scenario Given For This Assignment Talks

Decent Essays
The hypothetical scenario given for this assignment talks about a bill signed by the President that is approved by Congress. This law becomes known as the Protecting American Integrity Act, which addresses the issue of “fake news” in the media. The label of “fake news” is in reference to any published information that portrays elected officials in a negative manner. In contrast, any published information that portrays elected officials in a positive manner shall be labeled as “real news.” The Protecting American Integrity Act causes an issue with the sources of law titled statues and executive order. This is an issue with the source of law statues because the bill was approved by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives and…show more content…
Whether the information portrays the elected official in a positive or negative manner does not correspond with whether the information is “real” or “fake.” The Protecting American Integrity Act would be considered compelled speech, but would not be considered prior restraint. The book defines prior restraint as an “action taken by the government to prohibit publication of a specific document or text before it is distributed to the public; a policy that requires government approval before publication” (Trager, et al., 2016, p. 693). This means that information under prior restraint requires permission from the government before it can be published.
An example of prior restraint is the case of Near v. Minnesota. “Minnesota law allowed the state to enjoin publication of any periodical that typically produced ‘malicious, scandalous, and defamatory ‘ content” (Coyle, E., 01/25/17). There was also a use of an injunction which is permission granted by a judge to require that all publication of the scandalous or defamatory information be removed. Jay Near, the defendant in Near v. Minnesota, published in his paper that “city officials were standing by as Jewish gangsters operated gambling, bootlegging and racketeering business across the city” (Trager, et al., 2016, p. 66). This caused an uproar after the state of Minnesota reviewed the case and implemented a ban of
Get Access