The History Of Media Shield Laws

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search

“… to gather news it is often necessary to agree either not to identify the source of information published or to publish only part of the facts revealed, or both; that if the reporter is nevertheless forced to reveal these confidences to a grand jury, the source so identified and other confidential sources of other reporters will be measurably deterred from furnishing publishable information, all to the detriment of the free flow of information, protected by the first amendment.” (3)

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

King, Geoffrey. "Clear and present danger: the NSA, surveillance and the threat to press freedom." Nieman Reports 68.1 (2014): 38+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.

The case New York Times Co. Vs United States in summary was a first amendment battle between the United States government and the prominent newspaper cooperation New York Times in 1971. The premises of this legal battle was based on the New York Times reporter Daniel Ellsberg publishing in excerpts illegally leaked, classified documents containing the United States involvement in the Vietnam War specifically on the anticipated death counts (Institution, 2015, p. n .p). However, The United States government finding out about leakage placed a prior restraint also known as “government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place” on New York Times cooperation based on National Security grounds (Prior Restraint, 2015). The case, despite the over powering strength of the nation and the accusations against the New York Times Cooperation the case was ruled in favor of the New York Times by the Supreme Court (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2015, p. 458).

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

Schenck vs U.S was one case of 1919 in which protection through the freedom of speech clause was argued. Charles Schenck was caught mailing circulars to military members who had been drafted during World War 1, and expressing ideas to begin a petition to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck v. United States(n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 claims “Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.” The United States was unanimous in charging Schenck as guilty and claimed the first amendment was incapable of protecting him in such a situation. There were no dissenting justices in this case and the vote went 9-0.

The history of the Near case began in Minnesota in 1925 with the passing of the Minnesota gag law which allowed a judge to stop the publication of any publication they found obscene or malicious. (Press, Law, Publication, and Gag) In addition to this if the material continued to be published the creator would receive a heavy fine as well as time in jail. Designed in order to combat the rampant spread of yellow journalism, which was sensational news stories centered around the conduct of politicians and local community leaders, the first application was aimed at a weekly newsletter known as the Saturday Post published in Minneapolis by the controversial J.M. Near. (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law) While containing anti-semitic, anti-labor, and anti-catholic sentiments the paper also provided accurate stories about the corruption in the city. This angered the mayor and chief of police as they were the primary features of the

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the United States press is unlike any other in the world.

There are certain states that have held that a qualified reporter’s privilege exists, but the standards from each place differ. In U.S. v. Sterling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit deliberately denied a reporter 's privilege exists under the Branzburg precedent. A shield law is regulation that isn’t a law yet, but is created with the intention to protect a reporters’ privilege and aims to provide protection over a reporter to be forced to reveal his or her confidential source. The shield law isn’t a legal law, but mostly all of the states have their own interpretation of this concept. This privilege includes the right of journalist to refuse to testify in court for private, off-the-record information or identity of their sources from the news gathering and broadcasting process. Shield laws protect spectators from being obliged to speak about certain topics, especially in court, protects journalists from

The media regulation in the U.K. is more extensive compared to the U.S. Ofcom is an independent regulator and competition authority across television, radio etc. The PCC, also an independent body, deals with complaints from members of the public about editorial content of newspaper and magazines. The behavior of media is far more regulated in Britain compared to the U.S. In U.S. the views can complain about the content to individual media outlets but in Britain the complaints are published on various governmental website making it more visible. This means that the impact of government regulation is more evident in British media than in the American media.

As stated in the Constitution of United States of America of 1789; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Focusing on the freedom of speech , or of the press it’s important to note that the media holds powerful entities whether that be individuals, government, businesses, or the Catholic Church accountable for their illegal or dishonest behavior. To analyze this statement, I will be focusing on the film Spotlight and how this film reiterates the idea of holding and exposing wrongdoings through use of the

As always, there are those individuals that oppose the power to censor. There are members of society that believe in the freedom to speak publicly and to publish. This is a basic belief in the freedom of expression and is to be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. On the eve of the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, the first wave of a nationwide survey, comprising more than 1500 citizens was conducted. Through this survey it was found that American rate free speech as their second most precious First Amendment right and regard a free press highly in the abstract. Although there are strong cases made for and against censorship, the rising trend calling for censorship can threaten our basic rights to free expression and the right to be informed. At the center of the debate is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees our right to read, speak, write, and communicate freely. The government at the state or federal level cannot

The civil liberties that the American people have are inalienable rights. The most important of these is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of speech is not entirely protected; using hurtful, false, or damaging speech is not allowed. But how can the American government control something as basic as speech? There are laws against libel and slander but how are they perpetrated? This essay will explain how the court cases and laws have evolved and been clarified throughout America’s history up to present day.