The First Amendment under the U.S. Constitution allows its citizens to practice the freedom of speech or of press among other regulations while conducting their activities. This Amendment protects most employees and citizens from exploitation and the Judiciary system is always available to give justice and prosecute any defendant that may be found guilty of violating the regulations provided by the First Amendment. This paper will exhaustively analyze a Supreme Court case dealing with civil liberties and indicate from which amendment in the Bill of Rights the case relates and the factors that led to the case. The paper will also give the result of the case and what the Supreme Court decided on the case, including the effects that the case might have on society. Lastly, the paper will give its perspective on the case and offer some alternatives of the case results.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. V. Halleck, 17 ‐ 1702
Amendments
The First Amendment bounds any state actor from scheduling and selecting the broadcasts of a public access channel. The decision of the contents displayed is strictly circumscribed by laws and policies from the jurisdiction of the channel’s state and city laws. A case was presented by DeeDee Halleck and Papoleto Melendez against the Manhattan Community Access Corporation case to determine whether state actors and public access corporations can practice other regulations contrary to what is required of them by the constitution. The case mainly relates to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights since it entails the freedom of speech and of press owing to the fact that the case is concerned with broadcasting issues.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Factors that led to the case
The factors that led to the case were mainly attributed to the ability to distinguish boundaries between private broadcasting actions and public broadcasting actions. Both actions are protected and constrained by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights but its implementation was the foundation of the case in the first place. The case presented by DeeDee Halleck and Papoleto Melendez who were employed at MNN at that time. Issues started when the two wanted to attend a MNN Board meeting but were barred on grounds that the meeting was a private one (Amicus, 2019). Upon protesting, Halleck and Melendez were not allowed to enter the studio the following day. This led them to produce a program, “The 1% Visit El Barrio” which criticized MNN as part of the efforts to protest against the station. However, the program only aired once and all other airings were cancelled and the two were permanently denied access to the station’s premises (Barron, 1967). A suit was then filed by the duo claiming that the setting of MNN Corporation made it a public access system and forum hence violating their rights to free speech and of press as provided for in the First Amendment.
The Manhattan Community Access Corporation, which is private and nonprofit organization operating MNN stood on grounds that since it was a private entity, it should not be subject the First Amendment. The Operator wanted independent discretion regarding the contents that it was supposed to broadcast instead of being bound to the dictations of the First Amendment which provided the freedom of speech and of press to all employees working in the station.
Results of the case and Supreme Court’s Decision
In December 2016, the case was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court’s decision to dismiss the case was based on arguments from MNN Corporation and the city on grounds that the plaintiff not only violated the corporation’s rules and regulations but also the plaintiff was practicing their freedom according to the First Amendment. The court found no clear pattern that could govern whether the channels aired by the corporation were public or private forum ( Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 2019). The decision was definitely a close call but the plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit where two of the three judges then ruled in favor of Melendez and Halleck.
In the Second Circuit, the court ruled out that since public access systems were commissioned by the government, it should be conducted as a state actor hence cannot regulate its employee’s free speech. However, the case was later heard in February 2019 by the Supreme Court following a petition by MNN ( Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 2019). The Supreme Court conducted and heard oral arguments and the Justices had questions regarding whether MNN channel and the city had common property interests regarding channel space. The Supreme Court also reviewed what ‘first come first serve’ rule in New York practically meant.
Effects of the case on society
The case is mainly focuses on Public Access Television channel and rights of its employees regarding freedom of speech. The case can influence other factors of society as private actors can no longer violate individual’s constitutional rights not only in broadcasting channels but also in other organizations ( Smith, 2018). The decision of the case could also affect Internet companies and search engines basing on First Amendment claims based on the fact that editorial judgments may not be exercised accordingly ( Smith, 2018). For instance, YouTube may not be in a position to take down explicit videos that depict hate speech or animal cruelty. The same could apply to social media sites as they may not be in a position to block and eliminate offensive content from the user’s accounts.
Perspectives on the decision
I agree with the decision to grant the plaintiff the ability to exercise their constitutional rights since the organization was mandated by the government hence making it a state actor. The employees should be free to exercise their rights provided it is based on the right grounds and actions. In regard to Purdy (2018), I also agree that independent criteria contrary to the constitution cannot be used by the Operator in deciding which content to broadcast but should rather use established rules that are protected by the First Amendment.
Suggested alternatives of the decision
Although I agree with the court’s initial decision, I strongly believe that the case could be ruled differently not only to favor the plaintiff but also to predict how such cases will be ruled in future. Alternatively, the court could have ruled the case in favor of the plaintiff on grounds that they lost their jobs and were also denied their freedom of speech and expression ( Smith, 2018). Moreover, the court ruling could also lay down strict rules and regulations concerning how the freedom of speech should be exercised especially in companies that deal with social platforms and broadcasts. This would act as foundation for the case and also to other future cases that may be of the same criteria.
Conclusion
Generally speaking, freedom of speech is vital to all citizens and it should be freely exercised in every workplace and organization. Broadcasting companies that operate under state laws should allow its employees to practice the regulations of the First Amendment to the required limits. However, employees should not take advantage of the right to engage in activities that may be contrary to the interests of the organization or the general public.
References
Amicus, C. (2019). MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK, 17 ‐ 1702.
Barron, J. (1967). Access to the Press. A New First Amendment Right. Harvard Law Review , (8), 1641. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339417
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. (n.d.). Oyez .
Purdy, J. (2018). Beyond the Bosses’ Constitution: The First Amendment and Class Entrenchment. Columbia Law Review , 118 (7), 2161–2186.
Smith, S. E. (2018). Threading the First Amendment Needle: Anonymous Speech, Online Harassment, and Washington’s Cyberstalking Statute. Washington Law Review , (3), 1563.
