Curent Issues Essay, Research Paper

US HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT

RESEARCH PAPER

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 privacy was being violated. On the other side, there was the radio stations which had the freedom of the press in their side. Last but not least, the judiciary came to play, with the involvement of the federal court as well as the Supreme court.

Civil liberties, are rights of the people protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. 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. Liability is often determined by how the information was obtained and it s newsworthiness (The First Amendment. H). According to the case being discussed, the person who recorded the conversation, was violating the rights of both members to privacy. 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). Therefore, in this case the source of the wiretapping is unknown; making it harder for the case to be in favor of the two individuals. Justice Brandis once described privacy as one o the most confusing of all rights . (Knopf 1). On the opposing side, radio shows have the freedom of the press. freedom of the press, is the right to publish facts, ideas and opinions without interference from the government or from private groups. Such right applying to printed media as well as electronic media including radio television and computer networks ( Discovery school 1). 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. The US press regulated itself to a great extent, in dealing with the right to privacy, freedom of the press outlaws in some cases this right.

The last principle that applies to this case, is the Judiciary. In this case, both the federal district court and the US Appeals Court came to play. 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. Social value of facts, how deeply does the violation intrudes into ostensibly private affairs, the extent to which the person voluntarily assumed a position of public notoriety (The First Amendment. H).The Supreme court has the power to rule on favor of the radio, it can provide evidence that the news show did not play part in the wiretapping, therefore it had no charges to be held for. The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press Although the First Amendment. Only mentions the Federal congress, this provision now protects the press from all government local, state a federal (Goodale 1). 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. 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. Freedom of the press, is a right protected by the bill of right, as well as the right to privacy. Henceforth, this case is an excellent epitome of a battle between Civil liberties. Placing myself in a position, is a hard tasks. Both sides have strong points in favor of their sides. For instance, the media has in favor, that it is it s protected right to air and broadcast any information obtained as long as it wasn t directly obtained by them, in this case the wiretapping was done by a third part; respectively freeing the media from any charge.

In a recount, the facts and the provisions all went in favor of the media; this comes to show that the battle between civil Rights and Civil Rights is a very controversial issue that is confronted every day.

322