Propaganda: A Weapon of War

By Deana DiBenedetto

Deana DiBenedetto is a May 2023 graduate of Albany Law School. 

Prior to attending law school, Deana earned her bachelor’s degree from Saint Michael’s College, where she majored in Political Science, complemented by a minor in Crime and Justice. During college, Deana interned with the Greene County District Attorney’s Office, as well as the American Bar Association’s Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. 

During law school, Deana interned in the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of New York. Additionally, she participated in a Field Placement in the chambers of the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart. Deana was a quarterfinalist in the 2021 Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition, and she competed in the 2022 Domenick L. Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Moot Court Competition, in which she and her partner were finalists and received an award for their brief. Deana also won a best oral advocate award. Deana also competed in the 2022 Karen C. McGovern Senior Prize Trials Competition. She and her partner ultimately won the competition, and Deana also won the best oral advocate award. 

In her last year of law school, Deana served as Vice President of the Italian American Law Student Association, worked as a student ambassador for the Office of Admissions, was an editor for Albany Law Review and the Center for Judicial Process, and worked as a law clerk at Harris Beach PLLC where she will be starting her career after the bar exam.

Deana wrote this paper for Professor Bonventre’s International Law of War and Crime seminar.

The First Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It is widely believed that protection of this constitutional right is vital to ensuring the advancement of knowledge and truth. Yet, the United States government, while tasked with ensuring that information is properly disseminated to the American public in order to maintain an informed citizenry, has increasingly used propaganda to communicate stories in the marketplace of ideas. 

This paper characterizes propaganda as a weapon of war, and provides a case study illustrating the use of propaganda by the United States during the Vietnam War. 

_________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

International Law & the First Amendment

How They Intersect

By Gianna Emanuele Fernandez 

Gianna Emanuele Fernandez, a 2020 graduate of Albany Law School, was the Editor-in-Chief of the Albany Government Law Review, a recipient of the Isabelle Redman Prize and Joseph N. Barnett ’29 Memorial Scholarship, a research assistant in property law and graduated magna cum laude. Prior to attending Albany Law, Gianna graduated summa cum laude from University at Albany, SUNY with a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice.

 

While in law school Gianna held internships with the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of New York and the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. Before deciding to pursue a career in law, Gianna worked for the Dept. of Social Services for three years. She is currently working as an Associate pending Admission for DerOhannesian & DerOhannesian law firm in Albany, NY focused on the areas of criminal defense, civil litigation and election law.

The United States has been at the forefront of the discussion relating to the state’s role in interpreting and implementing international law.  Even more influential in the international law discussion has been the Supreme Court’s assessment on the intersection of United States domestic law and international foreign law.

Many scholars view the Supreme Court as a filter between international law and the American Constitution.  Not surprisingly, the Court’s consideration of international law in domestic affairs has been wrought with much criticism from both ends of the political spectrum.  The Court has historically been divided between justices who see foreign law as “another source in deciding tough cases” and justices who believe that citing foreign law is “an improper and dangerous way to interpret American law and the Constitution.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer estimated that 15 to 20 percent of the Court’s cases require knowledge about what happens abroad. At the same time he acknowledged that there is an ongoing “political argument that people say the court shouldn’t refer to or cite cases from foreign courts.” With that in mind, Justice Breyer felt it necessary to repeatedly emphasize that the Supreme Court is a domestic court, not an international court, and that there is no "Supreme Court for the world."

The intersection of international law and American constitutional free speech underscores the difficulty of drawing a clear line separating international and domestic law.

_____________________________ 

To read the paper, open HERE.