An_Analysis_of_Various_First_Amendment_Court_Cases,_Dealing_with_the_Rights_and_Protections_of_the_Media_and_Journalists.

I. Introduction Since the inception of Freedom of the Press almost a century before the Revolutionary War with New England, the press has greatly influenced the future of Americans, both social and political. Legal scholars did not truly understand the First Amendment until the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, which constitutionally protected the Freedom of the Press due to the courts giving careful consideration and setting apart the Amendment’s Freedom of the Press clause from the Freedom of Speech clause. During the 1960’s and 1970’s the press rigorously pounded the steps of the court revealing judicial conflict over its rights and practices. Court cases such as Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) and Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), tried to strengthen journalist newsgathering powers and its access to government information. Strengthening journalist newsgathering powers and its access to government information became the mission of the Press. The journalists of this era became more aggressive in their reporting. During the press quest for constitutional protection, the press found the “fourth estate” view, which would later justify its sought-after freedoms and privileges. The “fourth estate” view emphasizes the role of the press to alert the public to abuses and incidents of corruption in government. This would allow the press to explore and investigate events, inform people of what is going on and allow reporters to expose the harmful and good influences at work. Unfortunately the fourth estate view has received inconsistent and hesitant treatment in courts. In the 1972 court case Branzburg v. Hayes 408 U.S. 665 the Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. The fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation; the average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court. II. Definition of Terms Accusations----allegation: a claim that somebody has done something illegal, wrong, or undesirable Alleged---- to state or assert something, especially to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, without offering proof of it or with a view to proving it later Ally---- to join, or enlist somebody, in an association with one or more other states, organizations, or individuals for mutual help and support or the achievement of a common purpose Arraignment---- the legal process involved in bringing somebody before a court of law to answer a criminal charge Chief Justice---- a judge who presides over a court that has several judges, especially the Supreme Court of the United States Coalition---- a temporary union between two or more groups, especially political parties Compelling---- attracting strong interest and attention Confidential---- carried out or revealed in the expectation that anything done or revealed will be kept private Council---- a group of people elected to govern a local district Defend---- to represent and speak on behalf of an accused person in court Disbarred---- to take away officially the right of an attorney to practice law Disclose---- to reveal something that has been kept a secret Ecclesiastic---- a member of the clergy Enjoin---- to forbid or command somebody to do something by means of a legal injunction; to stop Exonerated---- free one from accusation or blame Fourth Estate---- journalists, the press, or the media in general; originally, any significant power other than the three estates; Edmund Burke supposedly first applied it to the press Freedom---- a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any, or to any undue, restraints and restrictions Grand Jury---- in U.S. and Canadian law, a panel of 12 to 23 jurors called to Decide whether there are grounds for a criminal prosecution in a case Guilty---- found and declared responsible for committing an offense by a court or other legal authority Inception---- beginning: the beginning of something Indict---- to charge somebody formally with commission of a crime Inflammatory---- provocative: liable to arouse strong emotions, especially anger Landmark---- An event marking an important stage of development or a turning point in history Libel---- a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody’s reputation. Libel can include pictures and any other representations that have public or permanent form. Livid---- very angry Media---- television, newspapers, and radio collectively: the various means of mass communication thought of as a whole, including television, radio, magazines, and newspapers, together with the people involved in their production Must-Carry---- The FCC has mandated that if a satellite service provider is going to carry one local network in a specific market they must carry all local networks in that market. Paramount---- greatest in importance or significance Precedent---- A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases Press---- all the people involved in gathering and reporting on the news, but in particular journalists working on newspapers Prior Restraint---- Judicial prevention of a statement or other expression from being published. Proceedings---- legal action brought against somebody Prosecution---- the trial of somebody in a court of law for a criminal offense Prosecutor---- a lawyer representing the state or the people in a criminal trial Publisher---- the owner or representative of the owner of a newspaper, periodical, or publishing house Ratified---- to give formal approval to something, usually an agreement negotiated by somebody else, in order that it can become valid or operative Scandalous---- causing or having the potential to cause damage to somebody’s reputation Seditious---- involving or encouraging rebellion against a government or other authority Seditious Libel---- in opposition to a civil authority or government Speech---- the act of communicating by speaking Supreme Court ---- the highest federal court, consisting of nine justices appointed by the president and making decisions solely on constitutional matters or the highest appellate court in many states of the United States or the highest court in a country, or in a state or territory of a federation Trial---- the use of a court trial to determine an issue or somebody’s guilt or innocence Unconstitutional---- not allowed by or against the principles set down in a constitution, especially a nation’s written constitution Verdict---- the finding of a jury on the matter that has been submitted to it in a trial Information found in: Webster’s Dictionary. Landoll,Inc. Ashland, Ohio, 1997. III. Results and Findings Review of Historical/ Landmark First Amendment Court Cases New York v. John Peter Zenger (1735) One of the most important First Amendment trials in America’s history occurred in New York in 1735. The trial of a German printer who was sued and imprisoned for publishing defamatory statements about the governor, set a precedent for future freedom of the press issues. John Peter Zenger was a German immigrant, who moved to New York in 1710 as an indentured servant. At the age of 13, Zenger began to work for William Bradford a print shop owner. Zenger later became independent and started his own printing business in 1726. Zenger printed quality print work for attorneys and local colonial government. In 1733, Zenger began publishing the New York Weekly Journal. Zenger’s paper criticized William Cosby, the British Governor of New York. Zenger’s paper published inflammatory writings. And in the era they had a law that stated ‘ the greater the truth the greater the libel’. The British law stated that ‘ truth was no defense in a libel case, and a libel could be anything uncomplimentary or which diminished the authority of the Crown or the Ecclesiastic authority. Although Zenger did not personally write any of the articles that defamed the governor he was still held responsible for the article because he published the paper. Cosby initiated charges against Zenger. Cosby knew that he didn’t have a good chance of winning because Cosby had little support within the community. Chief Justice De Lancey failed at urging a grand jury to indict Zenger for seditious libel. In October of the same year a second jury decided that majority of the issues in the Weekly Journal defamed the governor. But they didn’t indict Zenger because they deceitfully said that they weren’t clear on who had published the paper. The governor was very livid. Cosby’s council ordered that all the offensive issues of the Weekly Journal be burned and that Zenger be arrested. Zenger was taking into custody November 17, 1734. Chief Justice De Lancey set Zenger’s bail at four hundred dollars. Zenger was unable to pay the bail so he remained in jail for almost nine months. The Grand Jury did not indict Zenger but a prosecutor did charge him under a procedure called Information. The information procedure allowed the government to bring someone to trial at its discretion. Zenger’s arraignment was in April. James Alexander and William Smith represented Zenger, at the arraignment but De Lancey disbarred both after arguing that De Lancey ‘s commission, as a judge was invalid. John Chambers, an ally of the Governor Cosby, was appointed by De Lancey to represent Zenger. Cosby skillfully defended Zenger in the proceeding prior to trial, which shocked most because of his coalition with Cosby. Chambers prevented the sheriff from stacking the jury with friends of the governor. After James Alexander was disbarred he traveled to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where he convinced Andrew Hamilton the most distinguished lawyer in the colonies at that time to take the Zenger Case. Hamilton replaced Chambers in August 1735 when the trial began. Hamilton argued that if accusations in the paper were true, they could not be libelous. Chief Justice De Lancey rejected Hamilton’s argument, instructing the jury to go back to the verdict of guilty on the grounds that Zenger had admitted to being the publisher of the newspaper. Hamilton asked the jurors to use their best judgment as “citizens of New York” and “ honest and lawful men”. Hamilton stated that to convict Zenger of the crime the jury must find that the libelous matter was “false, scandalous and sedition.” Hamilton told the juries that they knew that it hadn’t been proven because the facts outlined in Zenger’s paper “are notoriously known to be true.” Hamilton believed that the Liberty of Zenger rested with the jury. The jury decided that Zenger was guilty of seditious libel in that time period, the jury concluded that the defamatory statements about Governor Cosby were true, so Zenger should not be convicted. Information found on Internet site: Douglas Linder, A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zenger.html Significance of Historical/ Landmark First Amendment Court Cases This trial is important because our country began to value and respect free expression more. The courts decided that you couldn’t be found guilty for defamatory statements if the defamatory statements were true. The courts were finally beginning to understand the First Amendment. I choose this case because it showed how the government tries to silence the media and how it appeared more than 270 years ago. Near vs. Minnesota 283 U.S. 696 (1930) The enjoinment of a newspaper in 1930, made two respected journalist question the U. S. Supreme court asking whether or not their first amendment rights had been infringed. Jay M. Near was the publisher of the Saturday News. The Saturday News was considered as a sleazy Minnesota newspaper because it contained bigoted, scandalous stories filled with rumors. Near was known as a crusader against corrupt government. His newspaper accused the major and the chief of police, alleging that the City Hall was in on the take. The corruption that Near was accused of writing about was truce between criminal’s and the police, and the city fathers in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Near’s attack offended many political leaders. And with each new issue of the Saturday News it became more intense. A complaint was filed at the Hennepin District Court in November of 1927 alleging that the Saturday Press had violated the Public Nuisance Law. The Minnesota Legislature put the Public Nuisance Law into Act in 1925 to silence newspaper’s that feed the city gossip. The Public Nuisance Law states “Section 1. Any person who . . . shall be engaged in the business of regularly or customarily producing, publishing or circulating, having in possession, selling or giving away (a) an obscene, lewd and lascivious newspaper, magazine, or other periodical, or (b) a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical, is guilty of a nuisance, and all persons guilty of such nuisance may be enjoined, as hereinafter provided. . . .In actions brought under (b) above, there shall be available the defense that the truth was published with good motives and for justifiable ends . . . .”. Near was forced under the law to stop future publications. The government tried to “enjoin” his newspaper. This enjoinment did not stop Near it only fueled him to dig deeper for the truth. Near challenged the Minnesota law. He said that the law was unconstitutional prior restraint. Bertie McCormick, a Chicago Tribune publisher, who joined Near in fear that similar restraints might stop similar respectable newsletters from printing. Both publishers took the question of Freedom of the Press to the Minnesota Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 1, 1913 the U.S. Supreme Court said that it agreed with Near stating: “The fact that for approximately one hundred and fifty years there has been almost an entire absence of attempts to impose previous restraints upon publications relating to the malfeasance of public officers is significant of the deep-seated conviction that such restraints would violate constitutional right. Public officers, whose character and conduct remain open to debate and free discussion in the press, find their remedies for false accusations in actions under libel laws providing for redress and punishment, and not in proceedings to restrain the publication of newspapers and periodicals. The general principle that the constitutional guaranty of the liberty of the press gives immunity from previous restraints has been approved in many decisions under the provision of state constitutions. . . .For these reasons we hold the statute. . .to be an infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Information came from:Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States, 5th ed. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2005 Findlaw.com, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl'court=us&vol=283&invol=697 Significance of Historical/ Landmark First Amendment Court Cases This case is significant to journalist history because one of the mission of the Press is to have access to governmental information to inform the public of important information. The Near case is one example of how the government tries silence to press and take away their First Amendment rights. Unfortunately for the government in this case, Freedom of the Press has been clearly explained. New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964) On March 29, 1960 the New York Times had a full-page advertisement with a banner that read “ Heed Their Rising Voices”. The advertisement suggested that the public officials in the South used violent and illegal means to try to stop the civil rights movement. The advertisements claims were mainly truthful, but there were some minor factual errors made. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery Alabama Police Commissioner, was infuriated when he saw the advertisement. Sullivan filed a $500,000 defamation suit against the New York Times and four African American clergymen. Although it was not mentioned in the actual advertisement, Sullivan nevertheless claimed that the charges of police mistreatment implied that he was involved. The law of the time was on Sullivan side. Libelous statements were not and could not be protested by the first amendment. Sullivan’s claims were heard and considered by a jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. The jury decided with Sullivan and awarded him the damages of $500,000 claimed. The case was appealed to the Nation’s Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Earl Warren presided. The previous decision was unanimously reversed, because the New York Times was not guilty of reckless disregard for the truth. The court ruled that factual errors that might upset or damage public officials were not as important as the free debate in a democratic society. With this precedent set forth, to win a libel case, public officials need to prove that the damaging statements were printed with malicious intent. The Supreme Court defines malice as “a reckless disregard for the truth, or advance knowledge of falsity.” Significance of Historical/ Landmark First Amendment Court Cases This case played an important role in developing current libel standards. The Court decided that public figures have a higher burden of proof in a libel case than private citizens. Public officials have to prove a libelous statement is published with malicious intent. This trial set the standard for people in the public eye. The standard was that if you are in the public eye or a political figure, you would probably be ridiculed more because you are in the lime light and just because you might disagree with what is being published about you doesn’t give you the right to sue for defamation of character. And if you did decide to sue a newspaper you have to prove that the newspaper had malicious intent and that is hard to do. Review of Recent First Amendment Court Case Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC U.S. 622 (1994) The following case considers the limitations of Freedom of Speech. Can the government constitutionally require cable television system operators to carry local broadcast stations' That question is the issue in the Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) case. In 1992, congress passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act. This act required that cable television system operators carry local broadcast stations. The courts and the federal government and the FCC were trying to justify the restraints on the electronic media that would never come for the print media. Turner Broadcasting System and other cable operators filed a suit, declaring that the government violated their freedom of speech and freedom of the press rights, which is guaranteed to them by the First Amendment. The district court said that the “must-carry” provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act were constitutional and that it did not violate their First Amendment rights. The court explained that the "must-carry" provisions constituted a "content-neutral" regulation that could be constitutional if it were shown that the regulation is more of an important governmental interest and did not unnecessarily restrict the freedom of speech. “The extent to which the government can regulate speech often depends upon whether the regulation is content-based or content-neutral. Content based restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, while content-neutral regulations need only reasonably advance a substantial state interest”. The Court remanded the case to the district court for proceedings so that the district court could determine whether the government did not unnecessarily restrict the freedom of speech. Information found in: Mass Communication Law and Ethics, Roy L. Moore, 1999 Manwah, New Jersey and Findlaw.com, U.S. Supreme Court TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. FCC, U.S. (1994), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl'court=us&vol=000&invol=u10372 Significance of Recent First Amendment Court Case This case is important because the Court set forth a standard for other courts to decide on when it came to evaluating the constitutional addition of cable television regulation. I choose this case because I believe that the government makes laws, acts, and regulations to regulate the media and this case is an example of my beliefs.