Upload
dan-kennedy
View
2.580
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A constitutional clash, with the media on the losing end. Slideshow to accompany lecture of Feb. 11, 2009.
Citation preview
Protecting sources
A constitutional clash — withthe media on the losing end
An old dilemma
• In 1848, John Nugent of the New York Herald was held for refusing to identify a source to the Senate
An old dilemma
• In 1848, John Nugent of the New York Herald was held for refusing to identify a source to the Senate
• The Herald gave Nugent a raise
An old dilemma
• In 1848, John Nugent of the New York Herald was held for refusing to identify a source to the Senate
• The Herald gave Nugent a raise• After a month, the Senate gave up
Another clash over the Sixth
• “[T]he accused shall enjoy the right … to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”
Another clash over the Sixth
• “[T]he accused shall enjoy the right … to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”
• All must testify before the grand jury
Another clash over the Sixth
• “[T]he accused shall enjoy the right … to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”
• All must testify before the grand jury• The First Amendment belongs to everyone,
not just the press
Journalist’s orreporter’s privilege
• As with free press/fair trial, a balancing test
Journalist’s orreporter’s privilege
• As with free press/fair trial, a balancing test• Courts decide on a case-by-case basis
Journalist’s orreporter’s privilege
• As with free press/fair trial, a balancing test• Courts decide on a case-by-case basis• Guidelines have shifted over time
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
• Paul Branzburg’s sources had information about drugs
• Two co-defendants had done confidential reporting on the Black Panther Party
Byron “Whizzer” White
• Wrote majority opinion
• Rejected reporter’s privilege
• Wrote that “the lonely pamphleteer” is as important as professional journalists
Potter Stewart
• Wrote minority decision• Criticized majority’s
“disturbing insensitivity” to the role of a free press
• Proposed a three-part balancing test
The Stewart test
• Does the journalist possess “clearly relevant” information?
The Stewart test
• Does the journalist possess “clearly relevant” information?
• Is there no way of obtaining the information by “less destructive” means?
The Stewart test
• Does the journalist possess “clearly relevant” information?
• Is there no way of obtaining the information by “less destructive” means?
• Is there a “compelling and overriding need” for the information?
Powell’s “enigmaticconcurring opinion”
• Sides with majority’s view that there is no reporter’s privilege
• Calls for “striking of a proper balance” between freedom of the press the obligation to testify
• Stewart wins by losing (but not forever)
The balancing test in practice
• Relevance and importance of information
The balancing test in practice
• Relevance and importance of information• Availability through alternative means
The balancing test in practice
• Relevance and importance of information• Availability through alternative means• Type of controversy
– Reporter’s privilege is weaker in a criminal case than a civil case
The balancing test in practice
• Relevance and importance of information• Availability through alternative means• Type of controversy• How information was gathered
– Confidential sources are more privileged than first-hand observation such as Josh Wolf’s footage
Shield laws
• About 30 states have them– A shield law is being considered in
Massachusetts
Shield laws
• About 30 states have them• Except for Wyoming, remaining states have
judicial opinions granting some degree of journalistic privilege
Shield laws
• About 30 states have them• Except for Wyoming, remaining states have
judicial opinions granting some degree of journalistic privilege
• None is absolute — more like the Stewart balancing test
Shield laws
• About 30 states have them• Except for Wyoming, remaining states have
judicial opinions granting some degree of journalistic privilege
• None is absolute — more like the Stewart balancing test
• No federal shield law
What should be protected?
• Justice White said you can’t define who is a journalist
• Vanessa Leggett ran afoul of this and served 168 days
• Is it possible to define journalism?
Citizen journalists
• Josh Wolf is the modern “lonely pamphleteer”
• We need to protect journalism, and not worry about who’s a journalist
Media arrogance• Mark Bowden asks:
Why should the media stand in the way of justice?
• “The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but it doesn’t absolve it from all civic responsibility”
Cohen v. CowlesMedia Co. (1991)
• Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
Cohen v. CowlesMedia Co. (1991)
• Damned if you do, damned if you don’t• Based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel
– A false promise that leads someone to engage in damaging behavior
– Similar to contract law
Cohen v. CowlesMedia Co. (1991)
• Damned if you do, damned if you don’t• Based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel
– A false promise that leads someone to engage in damaging behavior
– Similar to contract law• Justice White: “generally applicable laws” do
not violate First Amendment
McKevitt v. Pallasch (2003)
• Richard Posner a highly influential conservative judge
• Can’t ignore Supreme Court precedent
• Tells colleagues to re-read Branzburg and see it for what it is
Judith Miller case (2005)
• Judge Sentelle adopts Posner’s view
• Notes that Justice Powell sided with the Branzburg majority
• Adds that Justice Department used balancing test