Richmond Newspapers Inc v. Virginia

Court said that trial should be open to the public, made exemption if there is confidentiality then the case can be closed at any time. 

After a series of mistrials in a murder case in the state of Virginia, a trial judge closed the trial to the public and the media.Two reporters of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. challenged the judge's action.

the Court held that the right to attend criminal trials was "implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment." The Court held that the First Amendment encompassed not only the right to speak but also the freedom to listen and to receive information and ideas. The Court also noted that the First Amendment guaranteed the right of assembly in public places such as courthouses. The Court emphasized that "certain unarticulated rights" were implicit in enumerated guarantees and were often "indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined."

Branzbug vs. Hayes

The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. Justice White argued that since the case involved no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there was no Constitutional violation. The fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation; the average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court.

three part test

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project***

material support or resources and expert advice or assistance for foreign terrorist organizations does not constitute political speech and is not protected by the first amendment. 

The Supreme Court held that the material support provision of the AEDPA is constitutional as applied to the particular forms of support that the plaintiffs seek to provide to terrorist organizations. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that, as applied, the provision in question is not vague. Here, the statutory terms at issue -- "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service," and "personnel" -- are not similar to terms like "annoying" and "indecent" that the Court has struck down as being too vague. The Court recognized that the statute may not be clear in every respect, but it is clear enough with respect to the plaintiffs in this case.

Food Lion v. ABC News

the appeals court concluded that the ABC producers tresspassed. The court explained that the journalists had permission to be in the stores where they worked because Food Lion has hired them, but they did not have permission to secretly videotape footage in non-public areas of the store for use on ABC because Food Lion had not consented to their presence for that purpose. 

Veilluex v. NBC

truckers felt they were set up after giving permission for a ride along by dateline crew. Truckers through it was going to be a human interest, on the road type story. The story ended up showing long hours of no sleep, drug usage on the program. Veilleux sued and got $525,000 damages because evidence showed that NBC misrepresented and mislead them in development in the story. 

misrepresentation isn't wrong when you find information that can bring criminal charges

Griswold v. Connecticut

NAACP v. Alabama

The unanimous Court held that a compelled disclosure of the NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among the group's members. Nothing short of an "overriding valid interest of the State," something not present in this case, was needed to justify Alabama's actions.

Hustler v. Falwell

In order for a public figure to win an emotional distress claim they must prove

1. the parody or satire amounted to statement of fact, not opinion

2. it was a false statement of fact

3. the person who drew the cartoon or wrote the article knew it was false or exhibited actual malice

In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.

Time Inc. v. Hill

established actual malice requirement for all false light plaintiffs. 

In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court set aside the Appellate ruling against Time because the lower court failed to instruct the jury that Time's liability was contingent upon a showing that it knowingly and recklessly published false statements about the Hill family. The Court explained that absent a finding of such malicious intent on the part of a publisher, press statements are protected under the First Amendment even if they are otherwise false or inaccurate. The Court remanded for retrial under the new jury instruction.

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn

publishing names of rape victims: legally you can, ethically it's questionable

Martin Cohn was the father of a seventeen-year old girl who was raped and killed in Georgia. After obtaining information from the public record, a television station broadcast the name of Cohn's daughter in connection with the incident. This violated a Georgia privacy statute which prevented members of the media from publicizing the names or identities of rape victims.

The Court held that the Georgia statute violated the Constitution. Justice White recognized the primacy of issues of privacy and press freedom, but he also identified compelling reasons why the press should not be restricted in this case. First, the news media is an important resource for citizens which allows them to scrutinize government proceedings. The commissions and adjudication of crimes are issues relevant to the public interest. Second, in the development of the privacy right, the Court has held that the interests of privacy "fade" in cases where controversial "information already appears on the public record." Restricting the media as the Georgia law did was a dangerous encroachment on press freedom, argued White, as it "would invite timidity and self-censorship."

Florida v. B.J.F.***

respondent alleged negligence by petitioner for printing her full name in a crime story. This conduct may be punishable only when there is a narrowly tailored, significant state interest in doing so.

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart

Prior restraint to the press is only constitutional when there is a clear and present danger to the defendant's rights. 

A Nebraska state trial judge, presiding over a widely publicized murder trial, entered an order restraining members of the press from publishing or broadcasting accounts of confessions made by the accused to the police.

The judge's order violated the first and fourteenth amendments. The Court agreed with the trial judge that the murder case would generate "intense and pervasive pretrial publicity." However, the unanimous court held that the practical problems associated with implementing a prior restraint on the press in this case would not have served the accused's rights. Chief Justice Burger reasoned that"a whole community cannot be restrained from discussing a subject intimately affecting life within it."

Zurcher v. Standford Daily

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the "third party" search of the newsroom did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that such searches, accompanied by warrants, were legitimate when it had been "satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises." The Court also found that the Framers of the Constitution "did not forbid warrants where the press was involved."

Privacy Protection Act of 1980

Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada

prejudicial remarks by attoryneys do not violate the first amendment

*safety deposit box money went missing*

The Supreme Court of the United States stated first that “nothing inherent in Nevada’s formulation fails First Amendment review,” but that the Nevada Supreme Court did not interpret the rule in conformance with either the “serious and imminent threat” or the “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” standards. Moreover, the record did not show Petitioner had a bad motive; that his investigation of Rule 177 was adequate; that “much of the information provided by petitioner had been published in one form or another, obviating any potential for prejudice,” and; that “Petitioner’s judgment that no likelihood of material prejudice would result from his comments was vindicated by events at trial.”

Chandler v. Florida