P SC 1113 1st Edition Lecture 5 Outline of Last LectureI. How Does Representation Work?II. Freedom of Expression LawsuitsOutline of Current LectureI. Original PhilosophiesII. Testing ToleranceIII. Rights and the Path to LeadershipCurrent LectureI. Original PhilosophiesA. Founders didn’t always live up to these ideals 1. Alien and Sedition Acts attempting to curb discussion that’s against the governmenti. 1919’s Schenck case: handing out pamphlets to encourage avoiding the drafii. 1931 Near vs. Minnesota: Near was a disliked newspaper editor critical of people in power, attempted to expose corruption in the federal governmentB. Over time there has been a shif from the “balancing doctrine” (balancing the pendulum between freedom and protection) to what some call “fundamental freedoms”doctrine (where government has to meet heavy burden, only limit speech in extreme cases)1. New York Times vs. United States (1971): Leaked classified documents on state of Vietnam Wari. An example of government failing to meet this heavy burdenii. Public was being fed one thing about the war, and these documents said something else that was much more negativeiii. NYT thought the public needed to know that the war wasn’t as agreeable as they thoughtiv. NYT won, proving that the courts do what they can to protect Freedom of ExpressionThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.2. Who’s swinging the pendulum?i. Three cases above: government vs. individual/mediaii. At times government action built on foundation of public opinioniii. Key to moving the pendulum: perception of threat3. A Gallup Question (survey company)i. “In order to curb terrorism in this country, do you think it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties, or not?a. 1930s: 30% of public says yesb. Afer 9/11: just under 60% of public says yesc. By 2009: back down to 30%d. There were similar downward trends for national ID cards, government abilityto monitor credit cards, phone, and email(1) People don’t view these as necessary like they did right afer 9/11ii. Examples of actual limitations we’ve undergonea. Privacy perhaps diminished over time (National Security Agency)b. Airport securityII. Testing ToleranceA. Vague questions like “do you believe in freedom of speech?” lead to strong supportB. Start naming groups and support dropsC. Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus: the “least liked group” changes over time1. Communists, atheists, etc. aren’t as feared lately2. Why? Threats change, new issues pop onto agendaD. Norms and Power Conditioning1. Marcus, Sullivan, Theiss-Morse, and Woodi. Tolerance is shaped by multiple assessments of the situationii. Do we think demonstrators will follow norms (cooperate with police, follow routes, or be violent and cause trouble)?iii. Do we think demonstrators have any chance of gaining power?iv. The Skokie examplea. No to the first (norms)b. A mixed history on the second (power)III. Rights and the Path to LeadershipA. Tom Bradley well-liked, was projected to win but lostB. David Dinkins was projected to win by much more than he actually didC. Why were the polls wrong?1. Explicit vs. Implicit Prejudicei. Explicit: Consciously endorsed negative attitudes based on group membershipii. Implicit: associations that come to mind unintentionally, whose influence on thought and action may not be consciously recognized and can be difficult to controliii. Examples above known as “The Bradley Effect”a. Individuals say they’re open to diversity in office but when it’s time to vote, they actually vote differentlyiv. Is the 2008 presidentially election a true sign that we’ve advanced?a. The polls said Obama would win by 8 points and he won by 7, so they were super closev. Considerationsa. How attitudes toward groups play out electorallyb. The “underrepresentation” issue from lecture 4 and whether or not bias drives itc. How types of prejudice affect extension of rights described in the text book, GOVTvi. The Data on Race and Ethnicitya. 1958: 35% willing to support a well-qualified African American presidential candidateb. 1997 and beyond: 90% plusc. In recent surveys there’s a similar willingness to support Latino candidatesd. 2011 Pew Survey: 85% said candidate’s race wouldn’t matter (others say it helps or hurts)e. These numbers may be slightly elevated by implicit prejudice but we have gotten better as a nationvii. How might Hilary Clinton’s gender help or hurt her (if at all) in a run for the White House in 2016?a. The data on gender(1) 1937: 1/3 of Americans willing to support a well-qualified woman presidential candidate(2) 1950s and 1960s: 50%(3) 2002: 65% said they would, 28% said unsure, 7% said