Datasets:

xxazz

/

nq-corpus

like 0

2100

In literature and journalism, the school boasts 20 Pulitzer Prizes to 18 former students,[152] including Gail Caldwell and Ben Sargent '70. Walter Cronkite, the former CBS Evening News anchor once called the most trusted man in America, attended the University of Texas at Austin, as did CNN anchor Betty Nguyen '95. Alumnus J. M. Coetzee also received the 2003 Nobel Prize in Literature. Novelist Raymond Benson ('78) was the official author of James Bond novels between 1996 and 2002, the only American to be commissioned to pen them. Donna Alvermann, a distinguished research professor at the University of Georgia, Department of Education also graduated from the University of Texas, as did Wallace Clift ('49) and Jean Dalby Clift ('50, J.D. '52), authors of several books in the fields of psychology of religion and spiritual growth. Notable alumni authors also include Kovid Gupta ('2010), author of several bestselling books, and Alireza Jafarzadeh author of "The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis" and television commentator ('82, MS). Though expelled from UT, former student and The Daily Texan writer John Patric went on to become a noted writer for National Geographic, Reader's Digest, and author of 1940s best-seller Why Japan was Strong.[153]

University of Texas at Austin

2101

UT Alumni also include 28 Rhodes Scholars,[154] 26 Truman Scholars,[155] 20 Marshall Scholars,[156] and nine Astronauts.[157]

University of Texas at Austin

2102

Several musicians and entertainers attended the university. Janis Joplin, the American singer posthumously inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame who received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award attended the university,[158] as did February 1955 Playboy Playmate of the Month and Golden Globe recipient Jayne Mansfield.[159] Composer Harold Morris is a 1910 graduate. Noted film director, cinematographer, writer, and editor Robert Rodriguez is a Longhorn, as are actors Eli Wallach and Matthew McConaughey. Rodriguez dropped out of the university after two years to pursue his career in Hollywood, but completed his degree from the Radio-Television-Film department on May 23, 2009. Rodriguez also gave the keynote address at the university-wide commencement ceremony. Radio-Television-Film alumni Mark Dennis and Ben Foster took their award-winning feature film, Strings, to the American film festival circuit in 2011. Web and television actress Felicia Day and film actress Renée Zellweger attended the university. Day graduated with degrees in music performance (violin) and mathematics, while Zellweger graduated with a BA in English. Writer and recording artist Phillip Sandifer graduated with a degree in History. Michael "Burnie" Burns is an actor, writer, film director and film producer who graduated with a degree in Computer Science.[160] He, along with UT graduate Matt Hullum,[160] also founded the Austin-based production company Rooster Teeth, that produces many hit shows including the award-winning Internet series, Red vs. Blue. Farrah Fawcett, one of the original Charlie's Angels, left after her junior year to pursue a modeling career. The founders of the bakery chain Tiff's Treats founded their business while attending UT, offering warm cookie delivery to fellow students. Actor Owen Wilson and writer/director Wes Anderson attended the university, where they wrote Bottle Rocket together which became Anderson's first feature film. Writer and producer Charles Olivier is a Longhorn. So too, filmmakers and actors Mark Duplass and his brother Jay Duplass, key contributors to the mumblecore film genre. Another notable writer, Rob Thomas graduated with a BA in History in 1987 and later wrote the young adult novel Rats Saw God and created the series Veronica Mars. Illustrator, writer and alum Felicia Bond[161] is best known for her illustrations in the If You Give... children's books series, starting with If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. Taiwanese singer-songwriter, producer, actress Cindy Yen (birth name Cindy Wu) graduated with double degrees in Music (piano performance) and Broadcast Journalism in 2008. Noted composer and arranger Jack Cooper received his D.M.A. in 1999 from UT Austin in composition and has gone on to teach in higher education and become known internationally through the music publishing industry.

University of Texas at Austin

2103

Many alumni have found success in professional sports. Legendary pro football coach Tom Landry '49 attended the university as an industrial engineering major but interrupted his education after a semester to serve in the United States Army Air Corps during World War II. Following the war, he returned to the university and played fullback and defensive back on the Longhorns' bowl-game winners on New Year's Day of 1948 and 1949. Seven-time Cy Young Award-winner Roger Clemens entered the MLB after helping the Longhorns win the 1983 College World Series.[162] Three-time NBA scoring champion Kevin Durant entered the 2007 NBA Draft and was selected second overall behind Greg Oden, after sweeping National Player of the Year honors, becoming the first freshman to win any of the awards. After becoming the first freshman in school history to lead Texas in scoring and being named the Big 12 Freshman of the Year, Daniel Gibson entered the 2006 NBA Draft and was selected in the second round by the Cleveland Cavaliers. Several Olympic medalists have also attended the school, including 2008 Summer Olympics athletes Ian Crocker '05 (swimming world record holder and two-time Olympic gold medalist) and 4 × 400 m relay defending Olympic gold medalist Sanya Richards '06.[163][164] Mary Lou Retton (the first female gymnast outside Eastern Europe to win the Olympic all-around title, five-time Olympic medalist, and 1984 Sports Illustrated Sportswoman of the Year) also attended the university.[165] Also an alumnus is Dr. Robert Cade, the inventor of the sport drink Gatorade. In big, global philanthropy, the university is honored by Darren Walker, president of Ford Foundation.

University of Texas at Austin

2104

Other notable alumni include prominent businessman Red McCombs, Diane Pamela Wood, the first female chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Also an alumnus is Admiral William H. McRaven, credited for organizing and executing Operation Neptune's Spear, the special ops raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden.[166] Oveta Culp Hobby, the first woman to earn the rank of a colonel in the United States Army, first commanding officer and director of the Women's Army Corps, first secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare attended the university as well.

University of Texas at Austin

2105

The Keene Prize for Literature is a student literary award given by the university. With a prize of $50,000 it claims to be "one of the world's largest student literary prizes".[167] An additional $50,000 is split between three finalists. The purpose of the award is to "help maintain the university's status as a premier location for emerging writers", and to recognize the winners and their works.[167] The prize was established in 2006, in the College of Liberal Arts. It is named after E. L. Keene, a 1942 graduate of the university.

University of Texas at Austin

2106

Isle of Dogs (犬ヶ島, Inugashima) is a 2018 stop-motion animated comedy film written, produced and directed by Wes Anderson. Set in a dystopian near-future Japan, the film follows a young boy who goes in search of his dog after the whole species is banished to an island due to an illness outbreak. The film's ensemble voice cast includes Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Greta Gerwig, Frances McDormand, Courtney B. Vance, Fisher Stevens, Harvey Keitel, Liev Schreiber, Bob Balaban, Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, F. Murray Abraham, Frank Wood, Kunichi Nomura and Yoko Ono.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2107

A US-German co-production, Isle of Dogs was produced by Indian Paintbrush and Anderson's own production company, American Empirical Pictures. The film opened the 68th Berlin International Film Festival, where Anderson was awarded the Silver Bear for Best Director. It began a limited release in the United States on March 23, 2018, by Fox Searchlight Pictures, with a wide release on for April 13, 2018. The film has grossed $41 million worldwide and received praise for its animation, story and deadpan humor; some critics, however, accused it of cultural appropriation.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2108

In a dystopian near-future Japan, a dog flu virus spreads throughout the canine population. The authoritarian new mayor of Megasaki City, Kobayashi, signs a decree banishing all dogs to Trash Island, despite a scientist named Professor Watanabe insisting he is close to finding a cure. The first dog to be banished is Spots, who belonged to Atari Kobayashi, the orphaned nephew and ward of the mayor.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2109

Six months later, Atari runs away from home, steals a plane and flies to Trash Island to find Spots. After a crash-landing, he is rescued by five dogs: Rex, King, Duke, Boss, and Chief. They decide to help Atari locate Spots, although Chief, a former stray, is reluctant to fraternize with humans. Initially believing he died months ago after his cage failed to open upon arrival, the dogs soon learn there was a mixup and Spots may be alive elsewhere on the island. After a skirmish with a rescue team sent by Kobayashi to retrieve Atari, and at the insistence of a female purebreed named Nutmeg, Chief has a change of heart and decides to accompany Atari and company on their search. They seek advice from two sage dogs Jupiter and Oracle, who inform them of a rumored cannibal tribe of dogs on an isolated part of the island.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2110

Meanwhile, Professor Watanabe finds a cure, but is poisoned by Mayor Kobayashi to prevent the dogs from being returned from Trash Island. Foreign exchange student Tracy Walker suspects a conspiracy and begins to investigate. Ultimately, she confronts assistant scientist Yoko Ono, a former cohort of Watanabe, who confirms Tracy's suspicions and gives her the last remaining dose of the cure.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2111

During the journey, Atari and Chief are separated from the others. Atari bathes Chief, which reveals that his coat is actually white with dark spots, having become dirtied due to his time as a stray. Noticing the similarity between Chief and Spots' appearances, Atari realises that Chief is of Spots' breed, which is extremely rare. Chief recalls being part of a litter, where most of his siblings died, save for one. This implies that Chief may be Spots' brother. Chief reveals he was once a house pet, forced to flee after regretfully attacking his master out of fear. Chief begins to bond with Atari as they continue their journey alone together, with Chief beginning to open and care for Atari. They rejoin the group and locate the isolated, so-called 'cannibal', tribe of dogs, but find themselves ambushed by Kobayashi's men once again. Spots arrives with a small army of dogs who help fend off the assailants. Through flashbacks, he reveals that he was rescued upon arrival by the 'cannibal' tribe and later became their leader. Spots also confirms that Chief is his brother and asks to transfer his protection duties for Atari to Chief, and both agree.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2112

An owl arrives, revealing that Kobayashi plans to order total extermination of all dogs on Trash Island upon his imminent re-election. Atari and many of the island dog tribe decide to return to Megasaki City to attempt to prevent this. At Kobayashi's election ceremony, he prepares to give the order, but Tracy presents her evidence of his corruption and the cure's existence. Atari and the dogs also arrive and confirm the cure works. Kobayashi has a change of heart, but his right-hand man Major Domo insists upon seeing the extermination through. A fight ensues in which the 'execute' button is pressed, but, instead, the poison backfires on the captors, thanks to a hacker friend of Tracy's, allowing the island dogs to escape death.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2113

During the fight, Atari and Spots are gravely injured. Atari's only remaining kidney fails, but Kobayashi, admitting his mistakes, donates his own to save the boy. By election law, mayorship of the city falls to Atari and he decrees that dogs be allowed to reintegrate into society. Tracy and Atari become a couple, and Chief reunites with Nutmeg and takes up the role of bodyguard for Atari.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2114

Presumed dead, Spots recovers from his injuries and secretly raises his children under the Kobayashi Manor.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2115

In October 2015, Anderson, who had previously directed the animated film Fantastic Mr. Fox, announced he would be returning to the genre with "a film about dogs"[8] starring Edward Norton, Bryan Cranston and Bob Balaban.[9][10] Anderson has said that he was inspired by seeing a road sign for the Isle of Dogs in England while Fantastic Mr. Fox was in development.[11] Anderson said that the film was strongly influenced by the films of Akira Kurosawa, as well as the stop-motion animated holiday specials made by Rankin/Bass Productions.[12]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2116

Production began in October 2016 at the 3 Mills Studios in East London.[13][14][15]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2117

On December 23, 2016, Fox Searchlight Pictures acquired worldwide distribution rights to the film, with plans for a 2018 release.[16][17] A trailer was released on September 21, 2017.[18]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2118

The film premiered as the opening film of the 68th Berlin International Film Festival on February 11, 2018, and had its North American premiere as the closing film of the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, Texas, on March 17, 2018.[19] Isle of Dogs began a limited release in the U.S. on March 23, 2018.[20] It was released nationwide in the United States on April 13, 2018.[21][22][23]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2119

As of April 25, 2018[update], Isle of Dogs has grossed $25.4 million in the United States and Canada, and $16.1 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $41.5 million.[5]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2120

In its first weekend of limited release, the film made $1.57 million from 27 theaters (an average of $58,148 per venue), which is the highest screen average of 2018 thus far.[21] 60% of its audience was under the age of 30.[24] In its second weekend the film made $2.8 million from 165 theaters (an increase of 74%), finishing 11th.[25] The film entered the top 10 in its third weekend, making $4.6 million from 554 theaters.[26] The film expanded to 1,939 theaters the following week and made $5 million, finishing 7th at the box office.[27]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2121

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 90% based on 241 reviews, and an average rating of 8.1/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "The beautifully stop-motion animated Isle of Dogs finds Wes Anderson at his detail-oriented best while telling one of the director's most winsomely charming stories."[28] Metacritic assigned a score of 82 out of 100, based on 54 critics, indicating "universal acclaim."[29] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale,[24] while PostTrak reported filmgoers gave it an overall positive score of 88%.[30]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2122

Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 3.5 out of 4 stars, praising it for taking risks, and saying: "It’s smart and different and sometimes deliberately odd and really funny — rarely in a laugh-out-loud way, more in a smile-and-nod-I-get-the-joke kind of way."[31] Exclaim! gave the film 7 out of 10, saying it "has all the hallmarks of another Wes Anderson classic."[32]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2123

Some critics have argued that the film is an example of racial stereotyping and cultural appropriation, and that one of its characters aligns with the trope of the "white savior".[33] The Japanese characters speak unsubtiltled Japanese, with their dialogue instead being translated by arithmetic an interpreter or a machine. Justin Chang of the Los Angeles Times wrote "It's in the director's handling of the story's human factor that his sensitivity falters, and the weakness for racial stereotyping that has sometimes marred his work comes to the fore... Much of the Japanese dialogue has been pared down to simple statements that non-speakers can figure out based on context and facial expressions". Angie Han, writing in Mashable, calls the American exchange student character Tracy a "classic example of the 'white savior' archetype–the well-meaning white hero who arrives in a foreign land and saves its people from themselves".[34]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2124

While this critique has created some furore on the film's release, Chang has said that his review had been taken out of context and turned into a "battle cry" on Twitter, adding, "I wasn't offended; nor was I looking to be offended".[35] Another Japanese-American perspective was provided by Emily Yoshida, writing in New York Magazine, that these concerns had been "seen before in debates about Asian culture as reflected by Western culture — perspectives can vary wildly between Asian-Americans and immigrated Asians, and what feels like tribute to some feels like opportunism to others".[36] Writing for BuzzFeed, Alison Willmore found "no overt malicious intent to Isle of Dogs' cultural tourism, but it's marked by a hodgepodge of references that an American like Anderson might cough up if pressed to free associate about Japan – taiko drummers, anime, Hokusai, sumo, kabuki, haiku, cherry blossoms, and a mushroom cloud (!). [...] This all has more to do with the... insides of Anderson's brain than it does any actual place. It's Japan purely as an aesthetic – and another piece of art that treats the East not as a living, breathing half of the planet but as a mirror for the Western imagination".[37] She continued, "in the wake of Isle of Dogs' opening weekend, there were multiple headlines wondering whether the film was an act of appropriation or homage. But the question is rhetorical – the two aren't mutually exclusive, and the former is not automatically off the table just because the creator's intent was the latter".[37]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2125

The film's score was composed by Alexandre Desplat, who previously worked with Anderson on Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom, and The Grand Budapest Hotel. The soundtrack also features various original and selected songs from a variety of musicians, mainly from Japan. Some songs had origins in classic Japanese cinema such as the Akira Kurosawa films Drunken Angel and Seven Samurai. Altogether, the soundtrack is compiled of 22 tracks, 15 of which were composed by Desplat.[45]

Isle of Dogs (film)

2126

All tracks written and performed by Alexandre Desplat, except where noted.

Isle of Dogs (film)

2127

A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment. When not necessarily referring to a legal decision, this can also be referred to as a minority report.[1][2]

Dissenting opinion

2128

Dissenting opinions are normally written at the same time as the majority opinion and any concurring opinions, and are also delivered and published at the same time. A dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent nor does it become a part of case law. However, they can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive authority in subsequent cases when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or overturned. In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law, and a later case may result in a majority opinion adopting a particular understanding of the law formerly advocated in dissent. As with concurring opinions, the difference in opinion between dissents and majority opinions can often illuminate the precise holding of the majority opinion.

Dissenting opinion

2129

The dissent may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a different interpretation of the existing case law, the application of different principles, or a different interpretation of the facts. Many legal systems do not provide for a dissenting opinion and provide the decision without any information regarding the discussion between judges or its outcome.

Dissenting opinion

2130

A dissent in part is a dissenting opinion that disagrees selectively—specifically, with one part of the majority holding. In decisions that require holdings with multiple parts due to multiple legal claims or consolidated cases, judges may write an opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part".

Dissenting opinion

2131

In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered parts, which allows those judges "dissenting in part" to easily identify which parts they join with the majority, and which sections they do not.

Dissenting opinion

2132

In the mid-20th century, it became customary for the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and many state supreme courts to end their dissenting opinions with a variation on the phrase "I respectfully dissent."

Dissenting opinion

2133

The fourth season of the American television series Gotham, based on characters from DC Comics related to the Batman franchise, revolves around the characters of James Gordon and Bruce Wayne. The season is produced by Primrose Hill Productions, DC Entertainment, and Warner Bros. Television, with Bruno Heller, Danny Cannon, and John Stephens serving as executive producers. The season was inspired and adapted elements from the comic book storylines of Batman: Year One, Batman: The Long Halloween, and Batman: No Man's Land. The subtitle for the season is A Dark Knight.

Gotham (season 4)

2134

The season was ordered in May 2017, and production began the following month. Ben McKenzie stars as Gordon, alongside Donal Logue, David Mazouz, Morena Baccarin, Sean Pertwee, Robin Lord Taylor, Erin Richards, Camren Bicondova, Cory Michael Smith, Jessica Lucas, Chris Chalk, Drew Powell, Crystal Reed and Alexander Siddig. The fourth season premiered on September 21, 2017, on Fox, while the second half premiered on March 1, 2018.[1]

Gotham (season 4)

2135

The show was officially renewed by Fox for a fourth season on May 10, 2017.[31] Just like the second and third seasons, the fourth season also carried a new subtitle for the season: A Dark Knight.[8]

Gotham (season 4)

2136

The producers revealed that the season would be based on the comic book stories Batman: The Long Halloween and Batman: Year One. According to executive producer John Stephens, the season would not consist of "direct adaptations", but "loose interpretations" of the comic book series.[32] Ben McKenzie explained that the structure for the season would be "the beginning is more Long Halloween, our version of that, and the end is more Year One."[33] According to Stephens, the show will handle a horror-oriented direction on the season: "At the very beginning of the season, Penguin has solidified his control upon Gotham like never before. Where he's kind of unionized crime. And Scarecrow comes in to basically reintroduce fear into Gotham and to remind people that the dark is still scary out there. And we're really going to fashion, especially Episode 2, almost a horror movie episode where we really get to see Scarecrow. I think he's like purely terrifying. Imagine, rather than the other versions of Scarecrow out there — because there are a lot of different versions — what if you just really tell Scarecrow as a horror movie? Because he could be scary as hell."[34][35] Executive producer Danny Cannon stated, "When the studio asks you to tone back because it's too scary, you know you've done something right!"[5]

Gotham (season 4)

2137

Regarding Bruce's beginning of vigilantism, McKenzie explained that "We are definitely leaning into Bruce, having learned some of the skills to be a vigilante, now actually attempting it. Now, we have a long, long way to go before he can realistically be Batman, so there will be many stumbles and falls – and regressions back to being a kid at times – but Gordon will eventually become aware of what he's doing and that will bring them against each other."[33] David Mazouz also added, "Bruce really is taking on this vigilante persona and all the things that go along with that. Whether it be creating another persona, a public persona, that's also definitely going to be a major part of Bruce's journey this year. His relationship as this other person. Batman is coming. Absolutely." Mazouz also stated that he was worried the writers could pull back some aspects from Batman, deeming it "too fast" but he was glad it didn't stop. He said that Bruce would take the "Batman persona" this season.[36][37][38][39][40] Cannon also explained that Bruce will be seen "as the emerging threat he is."[41] Alexander Siddig stated that his character will seek to make Bruce his heir and will "do anything he can to get his hands on him, to manipulate him into what [Ra's] wants him to be." He also claimed that the season is "a season so far of extremes."[42]

Gotham (season 4)

2138

Talking about his character, McKenzie stated, "Comparatively, perhaps he's in a better place than some of these other truly evil, evil people." But as the season will be with him dealing with Cobblepot, Gordon "doesn’t have a lot of good options. He has to either fight him directly or find allies to fight Penguin — surrogates to fight Penguin — which leads him down a dark path. So, that's kind of the way we start for him in season 4."[43] According to Stephens, "We're going to see Jim make, in some ways, big steps toward I guess what you would call the commissionership. But also we're going to see Jim, in his quest to save the city, cross different ethical lines than he ever did before. It's going to bring him to an ethical nadir that we haven't seen him at, and it's going to be told through the context of a relationship that he has with Sofia Falcone, the daughter of Don Falcone, who's played by Crystal Reed this year. And that's going to be a really compelling and interesting relationship."[44] Sean Pertwee also stated that the season will also explore Alfred's mysterious past "indirectly".[45]

Gotham (season 4)

2139

McKenzie made his writing debut on the episode "The Demon's Head", after previously directing the third season episode "These Delicate and Dark Obsessions". McKenzie went to Los Angeles to work on the writers' room to break the story and then go back to New York City and finish many drafts. He explained, "I've been fiddling around with writing for a long time, but I'd never written an episode of television, so it was quite a learning process." He also added that, "From being on a set, the directing came fairly naturally. It was challenging, but there were a lot of things that I understood about directing just from observing, just from watching director's work. Writing often takes place behind-the-scenes. Physical production is not privy to how scripts come out... I wasn't so familiar with that process of breaking a story, of starting with a story document, then an outline, and then a draft; it was informative".[46][47]

Gotham (season 4)

2140

For the second half of the season, Cameron Monaghan stated that "We're borrowing very heavily from some of the most iconic Batman storylines. I think that they're deep enough, and they show where its really splitting that duality and start totally embracing the main arcs. I think that we did a little bit in season three to bring it into The Killing Joke."[48] He also added that the plan for the final episodes is to adapt Batman: No Man's Land, stating, "We're really getting into it this year. I think the way that the story escalates is something that shifts and is not anything the show has done before. I think it's going to be a really unique experience. Especially by the past few episodes, it's going to be really... it's pretty insane."[49]

Gotham (season 4)

2141

With the exception of Benedict Samuel and Michael Chiklis, all main actors from the previous season returned for the show, with Maggie Geha being downgraded to guest star.[50] Crystal Reed joined the series in July 2017 in the series regular role of Sofia Falcone.[2] Alexander Siddig was promoted to the main cast. In September 2017, Michael Cerveris joined the show as Lazlo Valentin / Professor Pyg, in a multi-episode role.[5] Cerveris stated, "Professor Pyg is a brilliant and chameleon-like person who has a highly developed sense of what's right and wrong — it just might not be a sense of right and wrong that corresponds with everybody else's."[51] He also added that, "When they [the writers] had somebody who played Sweeney Todd, they knew the direction they wanted to go... [Broadway fans who don't watch Gotham] might give it a look simply because of that, and find that they have a new favorite show."[52] Regarding the Dollotrons, Cerveris stated, "You know how much he's liked the Pyg in the comics, but I would say that his focus in Gotham is more on things to do with Gotham and with the city and with Jim Gordon. He's certainly is the manipulative character, and certainly, you know, is trying to get people to do stuff whether they know why they're doing it or not. But, that's sort of exclusive. His whole reason for existing is not the Dollotrons."[53] He described the character as having "a Hannibal Lecter-ish quality."[54] He also jokingly added that he couldn't eat bacon "because I just can't bring myself to eat my little friends."[55] Donal Logue stated, "We have Michael Cerveris coming in and playing Professor Pyg and he's such an incredibly gifted actor and, as happens a lot, the gentlest and most gifted of artistic souls can play the darkest, creepiest human beings known to literature or film."[56]

Gotham (season 4)

2142

Besides, the character of Tommy Elliot is set to return to the show, having appeared in the episode "The Mask". However, co-executive producer Bryan Wynbrandt added, "Obviously when Tommy Elliot is discussed, there's always is that Hush storyline. That is something that we've discussed. Right now, we're kind of still feeling that out. It could be something on the horizon, but I can't say for sure."[57][58] Also, Peyton List was cast as a new iteration of Ivy Pepper.[59] According to Bryan Wynbrandt, "The change was all based on the idea that she's continuing to evolve to become more of the Ivy from the comic books and what we really enjoyed. In this third evolution you're going to see a really self possessed, really scary and driven version of the Ivy character, who is intent on kind of making the world in the image she sees it should be, which is the green world. The world where the plants rule and people are an after thought."[60]

Gotham (season 4)

2143

As a concept McKenzie wished to explore, the fourth season is set to bring back the actor Charlie Tahan as Jonathan Crane / Scarecrow,[61] who portrayed the character on the first-season episodes: "The Fearsome Dr. Crane" and "The Scarecrow".[3][62] A trailer was screened on the 2017 San Diego Comic-Con that showed Crane donning a new costume under the Scarecrow persona.[34] McKenzie explained: "So we met his father Dr Crane in Season 1. So we've taken our time; we're gonna come back now to his son. You know, in circumstances probably not best described now, his son takes on his father's mantle and becomes the fully-realized Scarecrow. It's great. We're able to use this sort of fear toxin that Scarecrow is able to summon. We're completely unafraid — or perhaps afraid but we still persist–in expanding the universe and our capabilities."[63] Tahan commented on his character, "He's sort of trying to build an army with this toxin. Scarecrow might start brainwashing people. I'm not exactly sure what his endgame is — I don't even know if he knows. He has this revelation that he doesn't have to fear fear."[64] However, due to Tahan's commitment to the series Ozark, the role ended up recast with David W. Thompson, who is expected to portray him in the second half of the season.[65]

Gotham (season 4)

2144

When asked about Jerome Valeska's return in the season, Stephens stated, "What I will say about Jerome is that Jerome is in Arkham right now, and when you think about Arkham's record of keeping people locked up, we will probably see him again before the end of the year."[66] In September 2017, Stephens explained, "You're totally gonna see him this year. You're gonna see him in a new position this year", also teasing that Jerome would be an ally to Penguin on the season.[67] Ben McKenzie said, "Jerome is one of our most beloved characters. The idea here was to really give the audience more time to enjoy and savor [Cameron Monaghan's] performance."[68] Regarding the partnership between Jerome and Penguin, Robin Lord Taylor said "You have Jerome, who is chaos, and you have Oswald, who is control. So you can imagine, there are ways that those can integrate, but at the same time they’re opposites."[69] Stephens also added that Fish Mooney is "gone for good", saying, "Now, that one was it. At a certain point, you gotta say 'Definitely.' People die at a certain point, and that's the second or third time they die [on Gotham]"[70]

Gotham (season 4)

2145

Filming for the season began on June 20, 2017, at Steiner Studios in Brooklyn, New York.[71] In January 2018, it was announced that Ben McKenzie would direct an episode after making his directional debut the previous season.[72] It was later revealed that he would be directing the 16th episode, titled "One of My Three Soups".[73] Production on the season officially wrapped in late March 2018.[74]

Gotham (season 4)

2146

The season was originally set to air on September 28, 2017, on Fox in the United States.[75] However, on July 28, 2017, Fox decided to move up the premiere to September 21, 2017 in order to give its companion newcomer series The Orville a continuous run.[76] The fourth season is moving to a Thursday timeslot, alongside The Orville, after airing its past seasons on Mondays.[77]

Gotham (season 4)

2147

In July 2017, the cast and crew attended San Diego Comic-Con to discuss and promote the season, showing a five-minute sizzle reel from season 3 as well as the debut trailer for the season.[78] The second episode "The Fear Reaper" was screened on September 23, 2017, when Cannon, McKenzie, Taylor, Bicondova, Mazouz, Pertwee and Lucas promoted the series at the inaugural Tribeca TV Festival.[79] Besides, the cast will attend the New York Comic Con on October 2017 to promote the season as well as a Q&A presentation with the cast.[80] The season was also heavily marketed by trailers showcasing Bruce's beginning of vigilantism as well as Jonathan Crane's debut, both of whom received positive response from audience[81] with Digital Spy's Justin Hart commenting, "Sounds like a perfect time for young Bruce Wayne to finally embrace his destiny as a masked vigilante, doesn't it?"[82] while Albert Achar from IndieWire commented, "it looks like it is going to be a very wild ride."[83]

Gotham (season 4)

2148

As part of promotion for the ninth episode "Let Them Eat Pie", Fox released a "red band" trailer featuring Michael Cerveris as Professor Pyg, teasing a Sweeney Todd storyline in the episode as well as a musical number, which was considered by TV Guide as "insane."[84][85]

Gotham (season 4)

2149

The premiere was watched by 3.21 million viewers with a 1.0 in the 18–49 demo, which was a 17% decline from the previous season premiere but on par with last season's average.[103]

Gotham (season 4)

2150

The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 92% approval rating with an average rating of 6.8/10 based on 13 reviews.[104]

Gotham (season 4)

2151

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2152

The Bill of Rights was originally proposed to assuage Anti-Federalist opposition to Constitutional ratification. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2153

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2154

The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2155

The amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2156

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.[1]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2157

In 1776, the second year of the American Revolutionary War, the Virginia colonial legislature passed a Declaration of Rights that included the sentence "The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments." Eight of the other thirteen states made similar pledges. However, these declarations were generally considered "mere admonitions to state legislatures", rather than enforceable provisions.[2]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2158

After several years of comparatively weak government under the Articles of Confederation, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed a new constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring among other changes a stronger chief executive. George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginia's Declaration of Rights, proposed that the Constitution include a bill of rights listing and guaranteeing civil liberties. Other delegates—including future Bill of Rights drafter James Madison—disagreed, arguing that existing state guarantees of civil liberties were sufficient and that any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked the implication that other, unnamed rights were unprotected. After a brief debate, Mason's proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations.[3]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2159

For the constitution to be ratified, however, nine of the thirteen states were required to approve it in state conventions. Opposition to ratification ("Anti-Federalism") was partly based on the Constitution's lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. Supporters of the Constitution in states where popular sentiment was against ratification (including Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York) successfully proposed that their state conventions both ratify the Constitution and call for the addition of a bill of rights. The U.S. Constitution was eventually ratified by all thirteen states. In the 1st United States Congress, following the state legislatures' request, James Madison proposed twenty constitutional amendments, and his proposed draft of the First Amendment read as follows:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2160

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.[4]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2161

This language was greatly condensed by Congress, and passed the House and Senate with almost no recorded debate, complicating future discussion of the Amendment's intent.[5][6] The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791.[7][8]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2162

Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregational church in Connecticut):

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2163

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[9]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2164

In Reynolds v. United States (1878) the Supreme Court used these words to declare that "it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Quoting from Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom the court stated further in Reynolds:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2165

In the preamble of this act [. . .] religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty', it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2166

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, and some states continued official state religions after ratification. Massachusetts, for example, was officially Congregational until the 1830s.[10] In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states):

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2167

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.[11]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2168

In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994),[12] The Court concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[13] In a series of cases in the first decade of the 2000s—Van Orden v. Perry (2005),[14] McCreary County v. ACLU (2005),[15] and Salazar v. Buono (2010)[16]—the Court considered the issue of religious monuments on federal lands without reaching a majority reasoning on the subject.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2169

Everson used the metaphor of a wall of separation between church and state, derived from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson. It had been long established in the decisions of the Supreme Court, beginning with Reynolds v. United States in 1879, when the Court reviewed the history of the early Republic in deciding the extent of the liberties of Mormons. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who consulted the historian George Bancroft, also discussed at some length the Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by James Madison,[18] who drafted the First Amendment; Madison used the metaphor of a "great barrier".[19]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2170

In Everson, the Court adopted Jefferson's words.[17] The Court has affirmed it often, with majority, but not unanimous, support. Warren Nord, in Does God Make a Difference?, characterized the general tendency of the dissents as a weaker reading of the First Amendment; the dissents tend to be "less concerned about the dangers of establishment and less concerned to protect free exercise rights, particularly of religious minorities."[20]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2171

Beginning with Everson, which permitted New Jersey school boards to pay for transportation to parochial schools, the Court has used various tests to determine when the wall of separation has been breached. Everson laid down the test that establishment existed when aid was given to religion, but that the transportation was justifiable because the benefit to the children was more important. In the school prayer cases of the early 1960s, (Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp), aid seemed irrelevant; the Court ruled on the basis that a legitimate action both served a secular purpose and did not primarily assist religion. In Walz v. Tax Commission (1970), the Court ruled that a legitimate action could not entangle government with religion; in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), these points were combined into the Lemon test, declaring that an action was an establishment if:[21]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2172

The Lemon test has been criticized by justices and legal scholars, but it remains the predominant means by which the Court enforces the Establishment Clause.[22] In Agostini v. Felton (1997), the entanglement prong of the Lemon test was demoted to simply being a factor in determining the effect of the challenged statute or practice.[23] In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the opinion of the Court considered secular purpose and the absence of primary effect; a concurring opinion saw both cases as having treated entanglement as part of the primary purpose test.[22] Further tests, such as the endorsement test and coercion test, have been developed to determine whether a government action violated the Establishment Clause.[24][25]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2173

In Lemon the Court stated that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable", the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a 'wall', is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."[26]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2174

Accommodationists, in contrast, argue along with Justice William O. Douglas that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being".[27] This group holds that the Lemon test should be applied selectively.[27] As such, for many conservatives, the Establishment Clause solely prevents the establishment of a state church, not public acknowledgements of God nor "developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals."[28][29]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2175

"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order."[30] In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."[31] In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.[32]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2176

In Sherbert v. Verner (1963),[33] the Supreme Court required states to meet the "strict scrutiny" standard when refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. This meant that a government needed to have a "compelling interest" regarding such a refusal. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith.[34] In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face", would be unconstitutional.[35][36]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2177

The need for a compelling governmental interest was narrowed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990),[37] which held no such interest was required under the Free Exercise Clause regarding a neutral law of general applicability that happens to affect a religious practice, as opposed to a law that targets a particular religious practice (which does require a compelling governmental interest).[38] In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993),[39] the Supreme Court ruled Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable", the Court ruled that it needed to have a compelling interest, which it failed to have, and so was declared unconstitutional.[40]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2178

In 1993, the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), seeking to restore the compelling interest requirement applied in Sherbert and Yoder. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997),[41] the Court struck down the provisions of RFRA that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment, on the grounds that while the Congress could enforce the Supreme Court's interpretation of a constitutional right, the Congress could not impose its own interpretation on states and localities.[42] According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006),[43] RFRA remains applicable to federal laws and so those laws must still have a "compelling interest".[44]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2179

The First Amendment bars Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…." U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens commented about this phraseology in a 1993 journal article: "I emphasize the word 'the' in the term 'the freedom of speech' because the definite article suggests that the draftsmen intended to immunize a previously identified category or subset of speech." Stevens said that, otherwise, the clause might absurdly immunize things like false testimony under oath.[45] Like Stevens, journalist Anthony Lewis wrote: "The word 'the' can be read to mean what was understood at the time to be included in the concept of free speech."[46] But what was understood at the time is not 100% clear.[47] In the late 1790s, the lead author of the speech and press clauses, James Madison, argued against narrowing this freedom to what had existed under English common law:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2180

The practice in America must be entitled to much more respect. In every state, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men, of every description, which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law.[48]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2181

Madison wrote this in 1799, when he was in a dispute about the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Laws, which was legislation enacted in 1798 by President John Adams' Federalist Party to ban seditious libel. Madison believed that legislation to be unconstitutional, and his adversaries in that dispute, such as John Marshall, advocated the narrow freedom of speech that had existed in the English common law.[48]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2182

The Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century. For example, the Supreme Court never ruled on the Alien and Sedition Acts; three Supreme Court justices riding circuit presided over sedition trials without indicating any reservations.[49] The leading critics of the law, Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for the Acts' unconstitutionality based on the First Amendment and other Constitutional provisions.[50] Jefferson succeeded Adams as president, in part due to the unpopularity of the latter's sedition prosecutions; he and his party quickly overturned the Acts and pardoned those imprisoned by them.[51] In the majority opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964),[52] the Court noted the importance of this public debate as a precedent in First Amendment law and ruled that the Acts had been unconstitutional: "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history."[53][54]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2183

During the patriotic fervor of World War I and the First Red Scare, the Espionage Act of 1917 imposed a maximum sentence of twenty years for anyone who caused or attempted to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States". Specifically, the Espionage Act of 1917 states that if anyone allows any enemies to enter or fly over the United States and obtain information from a place connected with the national defense, they will be punished.[55] Hundreds of prosecutions followed.[56] In 1919, the Supreme Court heard four appeals resulting from these cases: Schenck v. United States, Debs v. United States, Frohwerk v. United States, and Abrams v. United States.[57]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2184

In the first of these cases, Socialist Party of America official Charles Schenck had been convicted under the Espionage Act for publishing leaflets urging resistance to the draft.[58] Schenck appealed, arguing that the Espionage Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Schenck's appeal and affirmed his conviction.[59] This conviction continued to be debated over whether Schenck went against the right to freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.[60] Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, explained that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."[61] One week later, in Frohwerk v. United States, the court again upheld an Espionage Act conviction, this time that of a journalist who had criticized U.S. involvement in foreign wars.[62]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2185

In Debs v. United States, the Court elaborated on the "clear and present danger" test established in Schenck.[63] On June 16, 1918, Eugene V. Debs, a political activist, delivered a speech in Canton, Ohio, in which he spoke of "most loyal comrades were paying the penalty to the working class – these being Wagenknecht, Baker and Ruthenberg, who had been convicted of aiding and abetting another in failing to register for the draft."[64] Following his speech, Debs was charged and convicted under the Espionage Act. In upholding his conviction, the Court reasoned that although he had not spoken any words that posed a "clear and present danger", taken in context, the speech had a "natural tendency and a probable effect to obstruct the recruiting services".[65][66] In Abrams v. United States, four Russian refugees appealed their conviction for throwing leaflets from a building in New York; the leaflets argued against President Woodrow Wilson's intervention in Russia against the October Revolution. The majority upheld their conviction, but Holmes and Justice Louis Brandeis dissented, holding that the government had demonstrated no "clear and present danger" in the four's political advocacy.[62]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2186

The Supreme Court denied a number of Free Speech Clause claims throughout the 1920s, including the appeal of a labor organizer, Benjamin Gitlow, who had been convicted after distributing a manifesto calling for a "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat".[67] In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Court upheld the conviction, but a majority also found that the First Amendment applied to state laws as well as federal laws, via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[68][69] Holmes and Brandeis dissented in several more cases in this decade, however, advancing the argument that the Free Speech Clause protected a far greater range of political speech than the Court had previously acknowledged. In Whitney v. California (1927),[70] in which Communist Party USA organizer Charlotte Anita Whitney had been arrested for "criminal syndicalism", Brandeis wrote a dissent in which he argued for broader protections for political speech:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2187

Those who won our independence . . . believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.[71]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2188

In Herndon v. Lowry (1937), the Court heard the case of African American Communist Party organizer Angelo Herndon, who had been convicted under the Slave Insurrection Statute for advocating black rule in the southern United States. In a 5–4 decision, the Court reversed Herndon's conviction, holding that Georgia had failed to demonstrate that there was any "clear and present danger" in Herndon's political advocacy.[72]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2189

In 1940, Congress enacted the Smith Act, making it illegal to advocate "the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence".[73] The statute provided law enforcement a tool to combat Communist leaders. Eugene Dennis was convicted in the Foley Square trial for attempting to organize a Communist Party.[74] In Dennis v. United States (1951),[75] the Court upheld the law, 6–2.[a][76] Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson relied on Holmes' "clear and present danger" test as adapted by Learned Hand: "In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil', discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as necessary to avoid the danger."[77] Clearly, Vinson suggested, clear and present danger did not intimate "that before the Government may act, it must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited."[78] In a concurring opinion, Justice Felix Frankfurter proposed a "balancing test", which soon supplanted the "clear and present danger" test:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2190

The demands of free speech in a democratic society as well as the interest in national security are better served by candid and informed weighing of the competing interests, within the confines of the judicial process.[76]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2191

In Yates v. United States (1957), the Supreme Court limited the Smith Act prosecutions to "advocacy of action" rather than "advocacy in the realm of ideas". Advocacy of abstract doctrine remained protected while speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government was punishable under the Smith Act.[79][80]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2192

During the Vietnam War, the Court's position on public criticism of the government changed drastically. Though the Court upheld a law prohibiting the forgery, mutilation, or destruction of draft cards in United States v. O'Brien (1968),[81] fearing that burning draft cards would interfere with the "smooth and efficient functioning" of the draft system,[82][83] the next year, the court handed down its decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969),[84] expressly overruling Whitney v. California.[85] Now the Supreme Court referred to the right to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2193

[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.[86]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2194

Brandenburg discarded the "clear and present danger" test introduced in Schenck and further eroded Dennis.[87][88] In Cohen v. California (1971),[89] the Court voted 5–4 to reverse the conviction of a man wearing a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" in the corridors of a Los Angeles County courthouse. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote in the majority opinion that Cohen's jacket fell in the category of protected political speech despite the use of an expletive: "one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric."[90]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2195

In Talley v. California (1960),[91] the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. Justice Hugo Black wrote in the majority opinion: "There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression . . . . Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind."[92] In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995),[93] the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature.[94] However, in Meese v. Keene (1987),[95] the Court upheld the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, under which several Canadian films were defined as "political propaganda", requiring their sponsors to be identified.[96]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2196

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976),[97] the Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related laws, which restricted the monetary contributions that may be made to political campaigns and expenditure by candidates. The Court affirmed the constitutionality of limits on campaign contributions, stating that they "serve[d] the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion."[98] However, the Court overturned the spending limits, which it found imposed "substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech."[99][100]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2197

The court again scrutinized campaign finance regulation in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[101] The case centered on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), a federal law that imposed new restrictions on campaign financing. The Supreme Court upheld provisions which barred the raising of soft money by national parties and the use of soft money by private organizations to fund certain advertisements related to elections. However, the Court struck down the "choice of expenditure" rule, which required that parties could either make coordinated expenditures for all its candidates, or permit candidates to spend independently, but not both, which the Court agreed "placed an unconstitutional burden on the parties' right to make unlimited independent expenditures."[102] The Court also ruled that the provision preventing minors from making political contributions was unconstitutional, relying on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2198

In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007),[103] the Court sustained an "as applied" challenge to BCRA, holding that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election. In Davis v. Federal Election Commission (2008),[104] the Supreme Court declared the "Millionaire's Amendment" provisions of the BCRA to be unconstitutional. The Court held that easing BCRA restrictions for an opponent of a self-financing candidate spending at least $350,000 of his or her own money violated the freedom of speech of the self-financing candidate.[105]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

2199

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010),[106] the Court ruled that the BCRA's federal restrictions on electoral advocacy by corporations or unions were unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990),[107] which had upheld a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury funds to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the portion of McConnell that upheld such restrictions under the BCRA.[108] In other words, the ruling was considered to hold that "political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment".[109]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution