Curent issues
On may 21,2001- the supreme court ruled in a case involving the rights of journalists against the personal rights to privacy, that news organizations cannot be punished for broadcasting information that was passed to them unlawfully. The case began in in 1993, when a conversation between two teacher union officials-Gloria Barnicki and Anthony F. Kane Jr- was intercepted and recorded by an unknown source. One of the officials was using a car phone during the conversation, the union officials made derogatory remarks about some school board members. The tape was sent to a talk show host, who played the tape over and over for his listeners. As a result of the scandal, the two union officials, sued the stations that carried the broadcast. However, the federal district court in Penn, allowed the suit, but the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled otherwise, holding that the constitution did not permit liability for disclosing information of "public significance" when the defendant played no role in the interception. In this case, a couple of principles apply, the first being civil liberties. The two board members appealed to the court with the argument that their right to
"freedom of the press, is the right to publish facts, ideas and opinions without interference from the government or from private groups. On the opposing side, radio shows have the freedom of the press. "The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides that 'congress shall make no law . In making connections to the case, freedom of the press is applicable to the radio stations who received the tape, they have the right to air such conversation, since the information was not obtained by the media. "Publication of truthful information concerning the private life of a person that would be both highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern is an invasion of privacy. However, in analyzing this case, one can become puzzled by the decision of the Supreme court in favor of the Radio station that played a private conversation for the public. The supreme court as well as the local courts, have no right to upress against freedom of the press; to do so would be violating the constitutional right. As Justice Stewart wrote in the Pentagon Papers Case, "without an informed and free press there cannot be enlightened people" (Goodale 4). According to the constitution and it's provisions, it is the media's right to publish and air any information obtained, no matter who the source was. of the press' Although the First Amendment. Last but not least, the judiciary came to play, with the involvement of the federal court as well as the Supreme court. However, the radio hosts are not necessarily violating such rights, according the Libertocracy association, "Revealing a friend's private financial records, credit history or dealing to other people or to public, may be grounds for a lawsuit only if there is a written agreement or contract to keep the information confidential" (Flanagan 2). The case was first handled by the federal district court, which allowed the suit to proceed, however the in the US Supreme Court it ruled otherwise. The court may consider several factors in determining whether information published in newsworthy.
Common topics in this essay:
Pentagon Papers,
Justice Brandis,
Third Circuit,
Amendment According,
Kane Jr-,
Amendment Constitution,
Supreme Court,
RESEARCH PAPER,
Constitution Publication,
HThe Supreme,
freedom press,
supreme court,
information obtained,
district court,
federal district court,
federal district,
civil liberties,
supreme court ruled,
violating rights,
rights privacy,
allowed suit,
battle civil,
|
Acceptance Essays
