Therefore the journalist was not required to reveal the identity of his source. For it is apparent that the sole limitation imposed on newsgathering by Policy Statement In balancing a court order that Winter must testify against the value the public may gain by shielding her from testifying, Winter's situation demonstrates that journalists can be left without clear guidance to face conflicting state shield laws.
The Solicitor General has informed the Court that the regulation was recently amended "to permit press interviews at federal prison institutions that can be characterized as minimum security. These cues may become significant as the press confronts new efforts to force journalists to testify.
Those precedents arose in contexts far removed from that of the instant case, and in my view neither controls here. The people must therefore depend on the press for information concerning public institutions. The reporter had written a story stating that the board of police commissioners was expected to recommend the officer's dismissal, and the reporter was asked at the labor relations board hearing if the source of his information was the board of police commissioners.
This is the thread amplified by Justice Powell in his concurrence. I believe that this test fills gaps where the First Circuit majority in Moloney failed. The question arises from the majority's consideration of confidential sources "not engaged in criminal conduct" but in possession of information "suggesting illegal conduct by others" or relevant to a criminal investigation.
It is a difficult case because it combines three separate lower court cases each with a different fact situation. Judge Posner's decision in McKevitt Branzburg v hayes case analysis. Risen refused, invoking the First Amendment, and the trial judge agreed that Risen was entitled to protect his source because the government had not demonstrated a sufficient need for the evidence.
Aside from the fact the press may seek shield law from the appropriate legislature state or federalthe press may also argue for protection under common law, a state's constitution for state cases or the inherent power of a court to protect witnesses from harassment or undue burdens.
The journalists, who attested to the importance of confidential sources in American journalism, included Scott Armstrong and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post reporters, and the late Jack Nelson, retired Washington, D. Imagine a group of enterprising journalists with a contract to write a biography of the key witness for the prosecution of an alleged terrorist.
It is unrestricted as to subject matter and lasts a sufficient time to permit full discussion.
Random conversations during supervised tours of prison facilities are also no substitute for personal interviews with designated inmates. Because plaintiff's need for the information was, in O'Neill's opinion, great and more than sufficiently compelling, he ordered the television station to respond.
State shield laws protect reporters from having to reveal confidential sources or information in certain circumstances. Some circuits have held that Branzburg forecloses First Amendment protection in all criminal cases.
And, of course, prison administrators should be empowered to suspend all press interviews during periods of institutional emergency. Constitutions have slightly different provisions on freedom of the press and at least one Connecticut judge has expressed the opinion that our constitutional provisions provide more protection than the federal first amendment, but this case did not involve reporter shield law issues.
It argues that this approach would undermine inmate morale and discipline and occasion severe administrative difficulties. It is said that First Amendment protections for newsgathering by the press reach only so far as the opportunities available for the ordinary citizen to have access to the source of news.
For example, there are the clear differences in the statutory exceptions to shield law protection through which a court can require disclosure. Risen argued that without a privilege to protect sources, reporters would be unable to gather news effectively.
These subjects are not privileged or confidential. The Fourth Circuit Rejects the Common Law Alternative Risen argued in the alternative that he is entitled to shield his source pursuant to a common law privilege.
The Times and other newspapers reported at various times about the new scrutiny of all Islamic charities and about plans to freeze or block the use of assets, but there were no published news reports of planned raids before those raids occurred. Meanwhile, the Administration itself sees support for a shield law as a means by which it can stop the bleeding.
Inmate letters addressed to members of the news media are neither opened nor censored, and incoming mail from press representatives is inspected only for contra-band and for content likely to incite illegal conduct.
To avoid media creation of "big wheels," the Bureau may limit the number of interviews of any given inmate within a specified time period.
At the time that the case was in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, this regulation prohibited any personal interviews between newsmen and individually designated federal prison inmates.
Third, Judge Posner quickly carved up the courts that had held there was a reporter's privilege for non-confidential sources or information to protect against harassment and oppressive burdens on the press:This case is before us a second time on a Government interlocutory appeal, brought pursuant to Article 62, Uniform Our multi-part analysis examines: first, at 1; see Branzburg v.
Hayes, U.S.(); United States.
A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the claim by New York Times Reporter James Risen that he was entitled to shield his confidential source. Although it was the product of a split decision, the ruling in United States agronumericus.comng was hardly surprising, as it hewed closely to a Supreme Court precedent, Branzburg v.
The now widely a ccepted view of Branzburg appears to be that it w as limited by the specific facts presented by the consolidated cases, and that a case-by-case analysis must be used in "balancing freedom of the press against a compelling and ove rriding public inte rest in the information sought.".
Branzburg v. Hayes: The Background. The case of Branzburg v. Hayes begins when Branzburg, a reporter, wrote a story after observing and interviewing several people using drugs in a two-county area in the state of Kentucky.
the courts to develop a privilege for newspaperpeople on a case-by-case basis’’). 25 Paul Marcus, The Reporter’s Privilege: An Analysis of the Common Law, Branzburg v.
Hayes, and Recent Statutory Developments, 25 Ariz. L. Rev.(). Branzburg v. Hayes (): Case Brief, Summary & Decision Hayes Case (): Significance & Dissenting Opinion Go to Supreme Hayes Case (): Significance & Dissenting Opinion Related.Download