Media Law 8 (Final Test) Confidentiality

Front 1

Define Subpoena:

Back 1

is a writ by a government agency, most often a court, that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure.

Front 2

When someone tells a reporter something and wants it to be confidential it is often said to be "not for_________."

Back 2

attribution

Front 3

(CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES)



Branzburg vs Hayes

Back 3

Branzburg is a reporter who investigates drug trafficking case in Louisville.
-he promises confidentiality to his sources.
- He says he is not going to tell.
- The court is fractured: Justice White (Writing for 4) says he must, citing "everymans evidence" and no special treatment for reporters
- Douglass: Absolutist
- Stewart (writing for 3 others) says only in some situations
-Powell is the tie breaker, votes with White
CASE IS MURKY! only involved criminal law not civil.

Front 4

(CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES)



The Stewart 3 part test:

Back 4

1. probable cause that a journalist has clearly relevant information to a crime.
2. no alternative person
3. overriding interest in the info the reporter has

Front 5

Shield laws:

Back 5

- protect journalist from having to give up their sources
-state to state

Front 6

(CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES)



Star Editorial vs US District Court

Back 6

-The Star prints a story that says that
Rodney Dangerfield gets drunk and chases hotel employees around with ice tongs.
- Dangerfield sues for libel
- Court asks for source, star says no.
-Court cites the "NO SOURCE RULE" assuming that if they won't give the source that they don't have one.

Front 7

(CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES)



Wheeler vs Goulart

Back 7

-Wheeler a Washington Post reporter' participates in a "glory for story" with local cops.
- It doesn't go as planned.
-She wont give up her sources, turns out she gave them to her husband.
-Court subpoenaed her husband.
-Paper and Court both furious.

Front 8

(CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES)



Morejon vs Miami Herald

Back 8

-Reporter is going to do a story about airport security.
-Airport security makes an arrest, the cops are accused of not reading the Miranda rights to the accused.
- judge forces reporter to testify as this is not a confidentiality case.

Front 9

(CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES)



In Re Farber

Back 9

- Farber is a NY Times reporter who is investigating the mysterious deaths of people in a hospital in NJ.
- Sources come forward and ask for confidentiality.
-In the case Farber refuses to give up his sources and goes to jail.

Front 10

(CONFIDENTIALITY IN REVERSE)



Cohen vs Cowles

Back 10

-Cohen is an adviser to the republican parties candidate for gov and LT gov.
- Calls up the press and says "If you keep me confidential I have something to tell you about the dem party candidate.
-the reporters agree and later give him up.
-He loses his job and he sues for breach of contract.
-He wins 5-4.
-The boss didn't back the reporters, they are the ones who gave the source up.

Front 11

(NEWS ROOM SEARCH)



Zurcher vs Stanford Daily

Back 11

-Police officers searched newspaper the Stanford Daily’s offices looking for photographs of criminals for purposes of identification.
-Police win: citing "every mans evidence."
- Some people cite "3rd party search"
-Friends of the court popped up to support the police.
-A lot of other groups had their attorneys draw up letters of support.

Front 12

(NEWS ROOM SEARCH)

Zurcher vs Stanford Daily prompted the 1980 ______________.

Back 12

Privacy Protection Act: You need a subpoena for not just a warrant to search a newsroom.

Front 13

(ACCESS TO PHONE RECORDS)



Reporters Committee FOP vs ATT

Back 13

- The government got the phone records of reporters to attempt to find confidential sources.
- Court votes against the press
- DOJ makes new rules

Front 14

(ACCESS TO PHONE RECORDS)


DOJ Regulations on Access to Phone records:

Back 14

1. no records unless consulting reporters first.
2. must be important
3. try to get the information another way that doesn't threaten FOP
4. Narrow Scope, (only take whats needed for the case)
5. Approval and Signature of Atty General.

Front 15

(OBSCENITY LAW)

Biggest problems

Back 15

1. how to define obscenity clearly
2. establishing a cause and effect relationship

Front 16

(OBSCENITY LAW)

3 obscenity tests:

Back 16

1. Hicklin Test- 1880s
2. Roth Test- 1957
3. Miller Test- 1973

Front 17

(OBSCENITY LAW)

Define SLAP:

Back 17

(must lack serious.....) Scientific, Literary, Artistic, Political

Front 18

(OBSCENITY LAW)

LBJ vs NIXON

Back 18

LBJ considered it no big deal.
NIXON vigorously attacked.