1. What are the essential features of democracy?  List them!
2. How does communication fit in with these features?  Ideally? In reality?
3. Are some kinds of communication more valuable/more important than others? What kinds?
4. What is the role/value of free expression in the economy? In science? In the arts?
5. Is there such a thing as dangerous communication?

  Questions for 1/23

1. After you have printed out and studied the handout on Ethical Traditions form the web site,  think of an ethical dilemma you have experienced or know about.  Determine what you thought was/is the "right" thing to do.  Can you determine which ethical tradition best fits your thinking on this issue?  Be prepared to discuss your response in class.
2. Some one once said, "You can boil down all communication ethics to two points:  'Don't lie.  Be Nice'."  Is that really enough?  Why or why not?

Questions for 1/28

1. What similarities and differences do you notice between the NCA and the PRSA ethics statements?
2. Be prepared to discuss and analyze the Dallas "Cinema" case (found on the "Analyzing Ethics Cases" web handout) and the Sample Ethics Case.

 Questions for 1/30

1. Compare Madison's original version of the First Amendment to the actual amendment as adopted.  Which version do you prefer and why?
2. Alexander Hamilton and others argued against inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution because the rights of personal freedom ultimately depend on public opinion for support and the commitment of the people to liberty.  How do you respond to this argument?
3. Write your own version of an amendment to protect free expression.  Be prepared to present it to the class and support the changes you made.  What do you think is improved in your version?
4. Based on our discussion of the Free Speech Issues survey in class, what seem to be areas of agreement among class members.  What are areas of disagreement? 
5. Outline the key arguments in support of free expression as presented in Mill's chapter 2 of On Liberty (as assigned in class).  Bring your outline to class and be prepared to present it/ defend it. Do you think there are additional reasons for protecting expression that Mill leaves out?
6. Is absolute freedom of expression practical for a democracy?  Why or Why not?
7. Do you think the government should use a "degree of danger" test?  If so, which one?

Questions for 2/4 and 2/6 

1. What are the three "degree of danger" tests?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?  Which one do you prefer and why? 
2. Do we really need controls of any kind on political expression?  Do different times or circumstances call for different "degree of danger" tests?  [ e.g. times of war?  the "Red Scare/Smith Act?"  radical terrorism? ]
3. Scan Eugene Debs "Canton Ohio Speech" (1918) and pay attention to the key "controversial" sections in paragraphs 4-6, 46-51, 58-60, 83-93, 97 and 100-111.  Do you think he should have been jailed for these words?
4. How would you explain the distinction (from Yates v U.S. and Brandenburg v Ohio) between ideas and illegal actions?  How should it be used?
5. What is the ACLU policy concerning restraints on freedom of political expression?  Do you agree with it?
6. What rules does Monmouth College have on speech and speakers?
7. Although the Patriot Act does not directly criminalize speech, it has been criticized for creating a "chilly climate" for speech.  Does it?

  Questions for 2/11 and 2/13

1. Should government officials ever be allowed to sue for defamation concerning criticism of their official conduct?  for invasion of their personal privacy?
2. Do you think repealing defamation laws would be practical?  What would occur?  Would the "more speech" concept be sufficient?
3. Do you believe it is appropriate to permit suits for "group libel?"  [ suits that charge "My religion or my ethnic group was defamed." ]
4. There is no mention of a "right to privacy" in the U.S. Constitution.  Do you think an amendment assuring a right to privacy would be a good idea?  How broad should such a right be?
5. Do you agree or disagree with the idea of punitive damages in defamation suits?
6. What do you think should be done about SLAPPs

  Questions for 2/18 and 2/20

1. Is it possible to define "obscenity" or "pornography" clearly?  Why or why not?  Draft some terms that you believe might improve previous definitions.
2. Is there any reason to restrict from consenting adults any material at all of a sexual nature?
3. Do adults have the right to be protected from "offensive" material?  If so, what restrictions would be appropriate?  inappropriate?
4. What sorts of restrictions should exist to protect children from sexually oriented materials?
5. Is it reasonable to set different standards for suggestive material for different media (e.g. internet vs DVDs vs broadcast TV vs cable vs video games)
6. Should we find a way to include violence in some way as a source of "obscenity (that is, unprotected expression)?
7. Do you think pornography is dangerous?  Or do you think it can play a useful role in society?
8. Examine the Illinois law on obscenity.  Is it clear.  Does it meet Supreme Court standards

  Questions for 2/25 and 2/27

1. Do you think there are such things as "fighting words" that can be punished by law? 
2. Do you accept the distinction begun in Chaplinski concerning "worthwhile" and "worthless" speech?
3. Is it ever appropriate for authorities to silence a speaker in order to prevent lawlessness by the listeners?  If so, when?
4. Some European countries have criminal laws against "hate speech."  Would such laws be useful in the United States? 
5. Is it necessary or even appropriate to attempt to protect those who may be "wounded" by words?  Are there ways other than speech codes to accomplish protection of those who words may wound
6. Should schools have restrictions on unacceptable forms of speech?  What kinds of expressions should be banned.  What kind of "notice" should be given to define what is unacceptable? 
7. What policies does Monmouth College have on "provocation" and "words that wound"?  Are they ones you find acceptable?  Why or Why not?  [ Bonus participation credit if you can answer this.

 Questions for 3/3 and 3/5

1. Is there any REAL difference in consequence between prior restraint and ex post facto punishments?  Should First Amendment law recognize a difference and take prior restraint more seriously?
2. Make a list of conditions under which, you believe, the government should engage in prior restraint.  What standards would be needed to prevent abuse of such government powers?
3. How do you feel about broadcasters airing election predictions before the polls close.  Should that be illegal?  What about laws prohibiting electioneering near polling places?
4. Do the new campaign finance laws (McCain-Feingold) function as a form of prior restraint by prohibiting some groups and individuals from placing ads in the media near election dates?
5. Should the government be able to require/enforce "secrecy agreements" as a condition of employment for sensitive jobs (e.g. CIA)?  Should private groups be able to require secrecy as a part of law suit settlements, especially if the issues concern "the public interest?

Questions for 4/2

1. To what degree to you think pre-trial publicity or other public discussion of court cases influences the outcomes of trials? How far is too far?
2. How far should courts go in limiting press freedom?  Are limits on court officials sufficient?
3. Would limits on public access to courts or information about legal proceedings in order to protect the right to a fair trial be acceptable?  Why or why not?
4. Should reporters be granted special protections for their first amendment rights not available to other citizens (e.g. the right to decline to name sources)? 
5. Where shield laws do exist, how much protection should they provide to the press?  in terms of searches? testimony?
6. What kinds of government information should citizens generally have access to?  What information should the government be allowed to keep out of the public eye?