DOM OF PRESS AMENDMENT PRO
Yet the Court has also suggested that the press is pro tected in order to promote and to protect the exercise of free speech in society at large, including peoples’ interest in receiving information. 555 (1980) imply recognition of some right of the press to gather information that apparently may not be wholly inhibited by nondiscriminatory constraints. Several concurring opinions in Richmond Newspapers v. at 568 (Powell, J., concurring) Branzburg v. Further, it does seem clear that, to some extent, the press, because of its role in disseminating news and information, is entitled to heightened constitutional protections-that its role constitutionally entitles it to governmental “sensitivity,” to use Justice Potter Stewart’s word. 233, 244 (1936) (holding that a tax focused exclusively on newspapers violated the freedom of the press) see also Amdt1.7.10.2 Taxation of Media. At the same time, the Court has recognized that laws targeting the press, or treating different subsets of media outlets differently, may sometimes violate the First Amendment. The Court has ruled that “enerally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects.” 7 Footnote Cohen v. 663 (1991) (newspaper’s breach of promise of confidentiality). 153 (1979) (defamation by press) Cohen v. 547 (1978) (search of newspaper offices) Herbert v. 665 (1972) (grand jury testimony by newspaper reporter) Zurcher v. Nor, in many respects, is the press entitled to treatment different in kind from the treatment to which any other member of the public may be subjected.
DOM OF PRESS AMENDMENT TRIAL
The trial access cases recognize a right of access of both public and press to trials. Several Supreme Court holdings firmly point to the conclusion that the Free Press Clause does not confer on the press the power to compel government to furnish information or otherwise give the press access to information that the public generally does not have. The plurality ultimately concluded that the First Amendment did not grant media the privilege of special access to prisons. But, in a plurality opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: “The Court has not yet squarely resolved whether the Press Clause confers upon the ‘institutional press’ any freedom from government restraint not enjoyed by all others.” 3 Footnote First National Bank, 435 U.S. Other articles are cited in First National Bank of Boston v. Justice Potter Stewart initiated the debate in a speech, subsequently reprinted as Stewart, Or of the Press, 26 Hastings L. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively.” 2 Footnote Houchins v. Justice Potter Stewart argued in a concurring opinion: “That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. In one 1978 ruling, the Court expressly considered whether the “institutional press” is entitled to greater freedom from governmental regulations or restrictions than are non-press individuals, groups, or associations. 103, 130 (1937) (ruling that applying an antitrust law to the Associated Press did not violate either the freedom of speech or of the press) see also Amdt1.7.10.2 Taxation of Media Amdt1.7.10.3 Labor and Antitrust Regulation of Media.
1 Footnote See, e.g., Associated Press v. A number of Supreme Court decisions considering the regulation of media outlets analyzed the relevant constitutional protections without significantly differentiating between the two clauses.
Some have raised the question of whether the Free Speech Clause and the Free Press Clause are coextensive, with respect to protections for the media.
Amdt1.9.1 Overview of Freedom of the PressĬongress 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.
0 kommentar(er)
