Whenever First Amendment rights are restricted, the public yearns for the inside story in court. But what about the restrictions on the coverage of the court? Is that not a First Amendment issue too?
Civil Rights Law 52, enacted in 1952, prohibits audiovisual coverage, by disallowing coverage of subpoenaed witnesses in New York. The law came about when Bruno Richard Hauptmann kidnapped and killed the son of notable aviator Charles Lindbergh. During the Hauptmann trial, photographers traveled without restriction throughout the courtroom. The photographers carried invasive equipment, fought for the best positions, and climbed over the counsel’s table for close up shots. Since Hauptmann’s days in court, state legislation has been responding with great restrictions (1).
The US Supreme Court instructed states to further their restrictions on news coverage in 1966. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, Sam Sheppard was accused of murdering his wife. The Court found that the coverage interfered with Sheppard’s right to a fair trial and therefore encouraged state coverage limitations (2).
The legislation on court coverage varies state to state. An Illinois witness cannot be forced to testify, if electronic media will cover the testimony. A news outlet must contact the court five days before the proceeding begins for access to coverage. Restrictions vary case to case; the judge’s discretion determines the limitations on coverage (3). In Idaho, the judge has exclusive discretion to decide which electronic devices can be used. The decision cannot be appealed (4).
By enabling one judge the jurisdiction to determine whether or not information can be released, the foundation of the First Amendment cracks. This enables the restriction of seditious libel. For example, a judge restricts unflattering coverage of a government figure. The power of the nation now lies in the hands of government officials and not the people. Democracy and the marketplace of ideas are threatened. The Framer’s included the First Amendment to preserve democracy. Regulated speech kills democracy and Truth. The coverage of court cases, specifically those surrounding the First Amendment, demand the rights of the First Amendment.
Sources:
(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1044059444844
(2)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=333
(3) http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_I/ArtI.htm#63
(4) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=17283
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Okay, I see where you're coming from as to this being seditious libel, but I don't think that is the issue here. Seditious libel is defined more as criticizing the government, and that is not what is going on here. Seditious libel is the people criticizing laws and the governement, and here it's more the government are taking the protection of the innocent into their own hands.
As far as the Idaho case, you said the judgest has descretion over which devices can be used, does that mean that they can say that NO devices can be used? I can see why that can be, in a way, can be prior restraint of seditious libel of a government official. Other than that, I don't think that the other laws are that horrible. I think that if the press are inhibiting a fair trial, which is another constitutionally protected right, that it should not be allowed.
In this country, I believe receiving a fair trial is more important than then having electronic media coverage in the courtroom. As you said in the Hauptmann trial, photographers and camera operators can be extremely distracting and possibly disrupt the trail. I think it is right for the courts to be able to set restrictions on just how much media is allowed to cover a trial.
Though it may seem like a jugde prohibiting electronic media coverage in his courtroom is holding back the release of information, it can be argued that he is only doing so to protect the fairness of the trial. If someone really wants to find information on the trial, they can read about it in a newspaper or magazine or other non-electronic media. This may take a little more energy than sitting and watching a reporter explain the trial, but if that is what must be done to protect the integrity of a fair trial, I think that is acceptable.
Post a Comment