Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(126,312 posts)
15. Branzburg v. Hayes 408 US 665 (1972)
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 08:11 AM
Aug 2013
Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE WHITE, announced by THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

The issue in these cases is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. We hold that it does not ...

The sole issue before us is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do, and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of crime. Citizens generally are not constitutionally immune from grand jury subpoenas, and neither the First Amendment nor any other constitutional provision protects the average citizen from disclosing to a grand jury information that he has received in confidence ... It is clear that the First Amendment does not invalidate every incidental burdening of the press that may result from the enforcement of civil or criminal statutes of general applicability ... At common law, courts consistently refused to recognize the existence of any privilege authorizing a newsman to refuse to reveal confidential information to a grand jury ... This conclusion itself involves no restraint on what newspapers may publish or on the type or quality of information reporters may seek to acquire, nor does it threaten the vast bulk of confidential relationships between reporters and their sources ... Thus, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a newsman's agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about crime than to do something about it ... Neither are we now convinced that a virtually impenetrable constitutional shield, beyond legislative or judicial control, should be forged to protect a private system of informers operated by the press to report on criminal conduct ...


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0665_ZO.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Oh fuck that freedom of the press stuff. progressoid Aug 2013 #1
I thought secrets were bad? Recursion Aug 2013 #2
Protecting Whistleblowers Aren't the Secrets I'm Worried About HumansAndResources Aug 2013 #7
Remember how DU lined up to support Judy Miller geek tragedy Aug 2013 #3
Actually, I didn't support that either Hydra Aug 2013 #5
Well, you are more consistent than most then. nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #6
DU was opposed to Judith Miller for reasons that everything to do with lying. Bonobo Aug 2013 #8
Right...kindly point to the DU thread that denounced Patrick Fitzgerald msanthrope Aug 2013 #12
No, YOU point me to the thread where Bush was defended for forcing a reporter Bonobo Aug 2013 #14
You are the one making the fantastical claim that Judith Miller was forced to give over Scooter msanthrope Aug 2013 #16
Huh? I never said anything of the sort. Bonobo Aug 2013 #18
Wait a second--that's priceless. Because Judith Miller was 'disliked' she should be subject to laws msanthrope Aug 2013 #21
No, dude, you still don't get it. Bonobo Aug 2013 #22
As my username clearly indicates, I am no dude. And I do get it--you don't have a cogent legal msanthrope Aug 2013 #23
"The process of news gathering is being criminalized." woo me with science Aug 2013 #4
^ Wilms Aug 2013 #9
Reporters have to testify when they witness a crime treestar Aug 2013 #10
Good luck enforcing that law davidn3600 Aug 2013 #11
Actions have consequences. nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #13
That's always a possibility treestar Aug 2013 #20
Branzburg v. Hayes 408 US 665 (1972) struggle4progress Aug 2013 #15
Not a single poster on DU has ever been able to make a convincing argument why reporters should have msanthrope Aug 2013 #17
Me too. nt kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Administration Rema...»Reply #15