Chapter 6 Flashcards
(17 cards)
Near vs. Minnesotra (1931)-Facts
Freedom of the Press;
Facts: In 1927 county attorney asked judge for a banning of the Saturday Press. The newspaper was scandalous, which Near connected to Jews and govt. officials. Judge allowed ban and sued w/ Chicago Tribune Editor
-Precedent after case: previous restraint banned (but not unlimited)
Near vs. Minnesota (1931)-Question, Opinion
Question: Does banning press violate the 1st amendment guarantee of freedom of press? Yes
Majority (CJ Hughes): Can’t force someone to publish truth and good motives, because regulation is impossible. While his words are malicious, censorship is worse.
Previous Restraint
Precedent in Near vs. Minnesota; 3 ways that govt. restraint is necessary
1. Protection of national security 2. regulation of obscenity 3. prohibition of of expression that would incite acts of violence
NY Times vs. US (1971)-Facts
Freedom of the Press; Prior Restraint
Facts: NY Times and Washington Post publish articles stating confidential info from Pentagon Papers and Gulf of Tonkin. Govt ask to stop b/c could cause “irreparable injury” to US. Newspapers argued this is history, not present.
NY Times vs. US (1971)-Question, Opinion
Question: Does the US suppression of freedom of the press fall under prior restraint (as said in Near)?
Majority (per curiam): Govt does not have enough compelling interest to cite prior restraint
Concurring (Black and Douglas): Flagrant violation of 1st; speech provision keeps govt in check and expose deception; govt secrecy is problematic
Concurring (Brennan): Govt pushes “could” or “might” be harmful-only war can infringe on speech& need direct proof that it will cause harm
Concurring (Stewart and White): Enlightened citizens are only check on govt-blocking some makes sense, however, there is no direct threat here
Dissent (Burger): Agree with prior restraint. and need restraint for free, functioning society
Dissent (Harlan and Blackmun): Does this case even belong here? Since executive is primary in foreign affairs, they have a right to censor a bit
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)-Facts
Freedom of the Press; School impose standards on school papers
Facts: Students wanted to publish articles on teen pregnancy and divorce in school newspaper and principal took out, because it was obvious as to whom they were referring to in the articles. Student editors sued.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)-Question, Opinion
Question: Does school have the ability to perform prior restraint? Majority (White): Don't lose 1st, unless will substantially interfere or if interfering with basic educational mission. School can regulate b/c not a public forum-greater regulation over written speech than vocal to make sure activity teaches correct material. Can dissociate self from poorly written material also and this speech is not important (like bong hits) Dissent (Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun): School approved policy that students had all rights implied by 1st, and only those that interfere with appropriate discipline may be prohibited. Doesn't disrupt class nor invade others rights, so we must reinforce Tinker.
Government Control of Press Content
Freedom of the Press: look at what newspapers must include (prohibiting content-overturned kind of in Cox vs. Cohn) and must exclude to appeal to the greater interests of society
Prohibiting content-Cox Broadcasting Corporation vs. Cohn (1975)
Principle established-States cannot prohibit truthful publication of public information (prohibiting content in freedom of the press case)
In GA it is illegal to release the name of a woman who has been sexually assaulted or raped. At a party a 17 yo was raped and killed, and, after the murder portion was dropped, 5 of the 6 boys pleaded guilty. Cox broadcasting found the indictment (public info) and released the name of Cohn (gir;). Cox argued that reports are legal under the 1st. Cox won, b/c court says under 1st and 14th cannot prevent publication of public records, and accurate reports of judicial proceedings have special protection and proceedings are of public concern.
Mandating content-Miami Herald vs. Tornillo (1974)
Principle established-Govts try to regulate press by requiring certain things. SC has little tolerance for content based regulations of printed media
In FL newspapers required to publish articles by political candidates running for office if they disagree (overturned)
Regulating Broadcast Media and the Internet
Precedent-does Internet have the same regulations as broadcast media? Congress regulates broadcast industry via interstate commerce regulated by the FCC. Have guidelines for what can be broadcasting and what programming. Congress allows more control of electronic media than print, because using public airways and only limited stating can operate.
Regulating Broadcast Media and the Internet-Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC
Case: can govt regulate broadcast industry so it can operate effectively and for public good?
-In 1969 FCC required for radio stations to provide fair coverage to each side under fairness doctrine. Red lion argued saying there are limited frequencies, and newspapers can censor for their limited space. Since so few frequencies (as opposed to papers) can regulate–>subject to reasonable govt control
Regulating Broadcast Media and the Internet-FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation and FCC vs Fox TV Stations
Pacifica-George Carlin had a show called “Filthy Words” that recited words & phrases that were not obscene, but considered indecent by many. After a complaint, Carlin was sued, but eventually lost in the SC b/c electronic media is more restricted than print & can invade privacy of home and uniquely available to kids
Fox-FCC got mad at Bono using f-word, and while charges weren’t pressed, they were cited for a word. FCC won.
News Gathering and Special Rights
Should journalists have special rights?
Reporters’ Privilege-do they need to reveal source? Normal individuals would need to if subpoenad, but some jobs, like lawyers must keep confidentiality
Branzburg vs. Hayes (1972)-Facts
Precedent:
Facts: Hayes wrote 2 articles concerning interviewing drug users and marijuana sellers. In court he was asked to answer jury’s questions concerning whom the people were, and he cited he could not b/c of reporter’s privilege.
Branzburg vs. Hayes (1972)-Question, Opinion
Question: Does requiring news-writers to testify before juries abridge freedoms of speech and press in 1st? No
Majority: We have a public interest in law enforcement and granting them special considerations is wrong. We are not abridging what can be published and if names can be confidential in papers, but rather looking at court settings for crimes. Anonymity to avoid criminal proceedings is not under constitutional protection.
Dissent (Douglas): Decision impedes thoughts in press which is needed for self-government
Dissent (Stewart, Brennan, and Marshall): Impair functions of press, and govt must show there is 1) a probable cause that clearly relevant to probable law violation and 2) demonstrate that info cannot be gathered by less destructive means, and 3) a compelling and overriding interest in info
News Gathering-Right of Access-Houchins vs. KQED
Houchins vs. KQED-court says allowing reporters and not normal citizens to see inmates is against the law b/c media is not govt. News sources have no right to govt info or sources of info without govt control
-however, they can see court proceedings as seen in Richmond Newspapers vs. VA
