You Can Say That Again
University Club gathering focuses on the First Amendment
STORY AND PHOTO BY
STEPHEN VRATTOS
Adjunct professor of American
and Constitutional history
at Hofstra University
and Nassau Community College,
James Coll, was the featured speaker
at the University Club’s monthly
gathering Thursday night, May 31. If
Coll looks familiar, it may be due to
his frequent appearances at various
club events at North Shore Towers,
especially of late. He’s spoken at
Men’s Club meetings, and for the
past several months, he’s been the
lecturer of a series of Women’s Club
meetings covering The Constitution
in its entirety. But this evening, Coll
lectured specifically on the iconic
founding document’s First Amendment,
which secures U.S. citizens’
rights concerning speech.
The Amendment is the first of
ten, which made up the original
Bill of Rights. Proposed in 1788 in
an effort to address and assuage the
objections of Anti-Federalists after
the ratification of The Constitution,
the Bill initially contained 24
amendments, as presented by
architect, James Madison. Each
pinpointed a specific guarantee
of personal freedoms and rights,
denoted clear limitations on the
government's power in judicial
and other proceedings, and made
explicit declarations that all powers
not specifically delegated to
Congress by The Constitution are
reserved for the states or the people.
In short, the rights encompassed
in the ten eventually selected are 1)
Freedom of Religion, 2) Freedom
of Speech, 3) Freedom of the
Press, 4) Freedom of Assembly
and 5) Freedom to Petition the
Government. Coll concentrated
his efforts on #3 and #2 by natural
extension. Given University
Club President Shirley Wershba’s
career in the media, which can be
traced back to her fledgling job as
a Copyboy at The Daily News, a
position not regarded to be in the
realm of women at the time, Coll’s
focus is unsurprising.
Deftly using case history, Coll
presented a fascinating look at how
the Freedom of the Press, one of,
if not, the most important
distinction separating the
United States from the rest
of the Free World, was
regarded in its nascent
form and evolved to
its current state, which
is arguably more pronouncedly
under attack
under the Trump administration
than at any other
time in its history.
As with all the First
Amendment Freedoms,
there are certain restrictions
to the Freedom of
the Press, similar to that
as pertains to people not
having the right to yell
“Fire!” in a crowded movie
house, though they have
Freedom of Speech. The
Press 1) cannot initiate
acts of violence, 2) publish
anything that may jeopardize
national security and
3) is forbidden to print
anything which may be
regard as an obscenity.
Still, the Government
does not have the right to exercise
“prior restraint” to the Press. That
is to say, the Government cannot
legally restrict the Press from publishing
something, even though it
has prior knowledge its substance
may be criminal in some regard.
However, the freedom to publish
possibly incendiary or obscene
material does not preclude possible
legal repercussions after publication.
This concept was put to the test
in 1919’s Schenck v. United States
in which Philadelphian Socialist
Charles Schenk was prevented by
the Government from distributing
anti-recruitment pamphlets in
1917, during the first World War.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion
by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jr., concluded Schenk’s actions to
distribute fliers, urging resistance
to the draft, was a criminal offense.
By an unprecedented unanimous
decision, 9–0, Schenk was found
guilty, though the potentially harmful
matter he printed was never distributed.
As more simply explained
by Coll, “When a nation is at war,
there are things fundamentally
people cannot
do, which they could
during peace time.”
Later landmark
case decisions, such
as 1931’s Near v.
Minnesota and 1971’s
New York Times v.
United States would
strengthen the powers
of the Press and the idea
of the Government not
having the legal right to
enforce “prior restraint”
on the publication of
certain material. In the
former, the Supreme
Court ruled against
Minnesota law, which
targeted publishers of
“malicious” or “scandalous”
newspapers.
More famously, in the
latter example, the
Court’s ruling made it
possible for The New
York Times and The
Washington Post to
publish the then-classified
“Pentagon Papers” without
risk of government censorship or
punishment, refuting President
Richard Nixon’s claim to having
the executive authority to force
the Times to suspend publication
of classified information in its
possession.
In less adept hands, the history of
the First Amendment, its challenges
and growth throughout the country’s
own maturation, could easily
become pedantic and mind-numbing.
But Coll’s prior experience as
a New York City Police Detective
serves him well in defining his
lecturing skills to be clear and
focused, digestible and satisfying,
incorporating imagery and humor
when needed to balance the headier
moments. The crowded room was
rapt throughout and fully engaged
in a sometimes contentious, but
never uncivil, QA session which
followed the presentation.
Coll addresses The Press
DON'T MISS THE UNIVERSITY
CLUB'S JULY BBQ ON SUNDAY,
JULY 15!
20 NORTH SHORE TOWERS COURIER ¢ July 2018