First+Amendment

=Censorship "Who?" "Why?" First Amendment=

Synthesis Question: Read the following sources carefully. Then, in an essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources, defend, refute, or qualify the effect(s) of censorship of the media on society.

[] (posted by Priscilla Anne Compton <3)
 * [[image:censorship.PNG]][[image:http://haleyo12.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/censorship_pencil.jpg]]

The First Amendment:** Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. []

Start research here: [] []

[] []
 * Too Many 'state secrets priviledge' cases[[image:http://karinlibrarian.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/censorship.jpg align="right"]]**


 * "Censorship violates the first amendment":**
 * []**

Dangers of Censorship: //The Boston Globe// []

Media Censorship: Why is Censorship Good? []**
 * __*Opposing Argument*__


 * Cencorship involving the FCC and books:**
 * []**
 * []**

//A little help from our friend Wikipedia://

The **First Amendment** to the [|United States Constitution] is part of the [|Bill of Rights]. The amendment prohibits the [|Congress] from making laws "[|respecting an establishment of religion]", impeding the [|free exercise of religion], infringing on the [|freedom of speech] and infringing on the [|freedom of the press]. In the 20th century, the [|Supreme Court] held that the [|Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] [|applies] the First Amendment to each [|state], including any [|local government].

> With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on [|classification of information] as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the [|national interest]. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or [|freedom of information legislation] that are used to define the ambit of national interest. >> In wartime, explicit censorship is carried out with the intent of preventing the release of information that might be useful to an [|enemy]. Typically it involves keeping times or locations secret, or delaying the release of information (e.g., an operational objective) until it is of no possible use to enemy forces. The moral issues here are often seen as somewhat different, as the proponents of this form of censorship argues that release of tactical information usually presents a greater risk of casualties among one's own forces and could possibly lead to loss of the overall conflict. >> During [|World War I] letters written by British soldiers would have to go through censorship. This consisted of officers going through letters with a black marker and crossing out anything which might compromise operational secrecy before the letter was sent. The [|World War II] catchphrase "[|Loose lips sink ships]" was used as a common justification to exercise official wartime censorship and encourage individual restraint when sharing potentially sensitive information. >> An example of "[|sanitization]" policies comes from the [|USSR] under [|Joseph Stalin], where publicly used photographs were often altered to remove people whom Stalin had condemned to execution. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, this deliberate and systematic alteration to all of history in the public mind is seen as one of the central themes of [|Stalinism] and [|totalitarianism]. >> Censorship is occasionally carried out to aid authorities or to protect an individual, as with some kidnappings when attention and media coverage of the victim can sometimes be seen as unhelpful.[|[9]][10] >> []
 * **Freedom of speech** is the freedom to speak without [|censorship] and/or [|limitation]. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "[|hate speech]".
 * **Freedom of the press,** is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic [|media] and [|published materials]. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching [|state], its preservation may be sought through [|constitutional] or other [|legal] protections.
 * **Censorship** is the suppression of [|speech] or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
 * ** Censorship of state secrets and prevention of attention **
 * [[image:http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png width="15" height="11" link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natgeo_censorship.jpg"]]A [|National Geographic Magazine] censored by Iranian authorities. The offending cover was about the subject of [|love], and the picture hidden beneath the white sticker is of an embracing couple.[|[11]] February 2006.
 * [[image:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/30/Natgeo_censorship.jpg/185px-Natgeo_censorship.jpg width="193" height="256" align="left" link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natgeo_censorship.jpg"]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]
 * The **State Secrets Privilege** is an [|evidentiary rule] created by [|United States] legal [|precedent]. The court is asked to exclude evidence from a [|legal case] based solely on an [|affidavit] submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security,[|[1]][|[2]][|[3]][|[4]][|[5]][|[6]] and military secrets in particular as in the case of //[|United States v. Reynolds]//,[|[7]] the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege. Following a claim of "State Secrets Privilege", the court rarely conducts an [|in camera] examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[|[1]] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[|[3]][|[5]]

Internet Censorship and the Freedom of Speech: []

Obscenity, Censorship and the First Ammendment: //Atlantic// writings from the turn of the twentieth century forward on the fraught battleground between freedom of speech and public morality []

A sensored military letter:

[] []





[]

Google Inc. News []



http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/01/29/GR2008012900223.gif

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35981427/ns/technology_and_science-security/?gt1=43001 ^ just was published 6 minutes ago...

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html ^ blogs not vlogs

Jennifer Stanton, Ben Vila, Annie Compton, Chandler Sopko, and Kristen Parkes