Freedom of the Press/Conflicts with other Rights/Other fundamental - Revision history

Jkochan1 at 06:30, 22 May 2023

2023-05-22T06:30:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:30, 22 May 2023
Line 16:		Line 16:

	References:		References:

			Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975): https://www.oyez.org/search/Cox%20Broadcasting%20Corporation%20v.%20Cohn

	Thomas I. Emerson, "The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 14, no. 2 (Summer 1979): 329-360		Thomas I. Emerson, "The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 14, no. 2 (Summer 1979): 329-360

			Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-918

			Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/22
	}}		}}

Jkochan1 at 06:24, 22 May 2023

2023-05-22T06:24:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:24, 22 May 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:
	As of [[Probable year:: 1996]], the Federal Freedom of Information Act was passed which gives public access to many federal records. However, there are nine exemptions to the Act that restrict public access to certain health and medical records, documents for the purpose of law enforcement, trade secrets or classified documents, among others. These exemptions are commonly referred to in right to know cases. Additionally, the Government in Sunshine Act of [[Probable year:: 1976]] ensures that federal agency meetings are open to the public. An exception to this act is made in cases where the meetings contain, “information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The phrase, “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” has been broadly interpreted. Overall, the conflicts surrounding freedom of the press and privacy lack consistent legal procedure (Emerson [[Probable year:: 1979]], 351).		As of [[Probable year:: 1996]], the Federal Freedom of Information Act was passed which gives public access to many federal records. However, there are nine exemptions to the Act that restrict public access to certain health and medical records, documents for the purpose of law enforcement, trade secrets or classified documents, among others. These exemptions are commonly referred to in right to know cases. Additionally, the Government in Sunshine Act of [[Probable year:: 1976]] ensures that federal agency meetings are open to the public. An exception to this act is made in cases where the meetings contain, “information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The phrase, “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” has been broadly interpreted. Overall, the conflicts surrounding freedom of the press and privacy lack consistent legal procedure (Emerson [[Probable year:: 1979]], 351).

			References:

			Thomas I. Emerson, "The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 14, no. 2 (Summer 1979): 329-360
	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-12-28T22:19:09Z

transformed

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 28 December 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?		\|questionHeading=Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=A fundamental right that tends to conflict with freedom of the press is the right to privacy, which includes the protection of reputation. Two common conflicts between freedom of the press and the right to privacy are that between the right to publish and privacy and that between the right of the press to obtain information and the right to privacy. Beginning with the conflict between the right to publish and privacy, the issues concern the disclosure of embarrassing factual information about a person and the publishing of information that falsely displays a person to the public (Emerson [[Probable year::1979]], 332). Historically, in cases where privacy law is applicable, the courts have tended to balance the importance of the publication for news purposes with the extent of the invasion of privacy. For instance, if the publication is not thought to be newsworthy or necessary, but most people would view it as offensive, the court would allow a claim to privacy. Although, the same claim to privacy may not stand in a case in which the publication is considered newsworthy. Similarly, in defamation cases, courts consider the extent to which reputation is harmed, and therefore courts may be more likely to protect the reputation of a public figure over that of someone more private (Emerson [[Probable year::1979]], 333).		\|contents=A fundamental right that tends to conflict with freedom of the press is the right to privacy, which includes the protection of reputation. Two common conflicts between freedom of the press and the right to privacy are that between the right to publish and privacy and that between the right of the press to obtain information and the right to privacy. Beginning with the conflict between the right to publish and privacy, the issues concern the disclosure of embarrassing factual information about a person and the publishing of information that falsely displays a person to the public (Emerson [[Probable year:: 1979]], 332). Historically, in cases where privacy law is applicable, the courts have tended to balance the importance of the publication for news purposes with the extent of the invasion of privacy. For instance, if the publication is not thought to be newsworthy or necessary, but most people would view it as offensive, the court would allow a claim to privacy. Although, the same claim to privacy may not stand in a case in which the publication is considered newsworthy. Similarly, in defamation cases, courts consider the extent to which reputation is harmed, and therefore courts may be more likely to protect the reputation of a public figure over that of someone more private (Emerson [[Probable year:: 1979]], 333).

	A specific case involving the conflict between the right to publish and privacy is Time Inc. v. Hill which took place in [[Probable year::1967]] (Time, Inc. v. Hill [[Probable year::1967]]) . Hill and his family were held hostage in their home in [[Probable year::1952]], and upon being released unharmed, they moved homes and requested limited publicity about what took place. Later, a novel came out about a similar situation which was also made into a play. Life magazine published an article about the play suggesting that it was a depiction of what happened to Hill’s family, even though the play reflected various incidents. The family sued for damages on the grounds that Life had knowingly presented false information about the Hill incident. Life suggested that the article was of public interest and was not published with malicious intent. The court determined that the Life article was not intended to be a source of news, but was rather distributed for advertising purposes. Subsequently, the family received compensatory damages (Time, Inc. v. Hill [[Probable year::1967]]) .		A specific case involving the conflict between the right to publish and privacy is Time Inc. v. Hill which took place in [[Probable year:: 1967]] (Time, Inc. v. Hill [[Probable year:: 1967]]) . Hill and his family were held hostage in their home in [[Probable year:: 1952]], and upon being released unharmed, they moved homes and requested limited publicity about what took place. Later, a novel came out about a similar situation which was also made into a play. Life magazine published an article about the play suggesting that it was a depiction of what happened to Hill’s family, even though the play reflected various incidents. The family sued for damages on the grounds that Life had knowingly presented false information about the Hill incident. Life suggested that the article was of public interest and was not published with malicious intent. The court determined that the Life article was not intended to be a source of news, but was rather distributed for advertising purposes. Subsequently, the family received compensatory damages (Time, Inc. v. Hill [[Probable year:: 1967]]) .

	Another specific example is Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn which took place in [[Probable year::1975]] (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn [[Probable year::1975]]) . Cohn was the father of a seventeen year old girl who had been raped and killed in Georgia. Cox Broadcasting had obtained the girl’s name from public records and broadcasted the name during a news report. According to a Georgia privacy statute, names and identities of rape victims cannot be publicized. The court ultimately decided that the girl’s name was not a matter of public interest, and hence sided with Cohn, that the incident was an invasion of privacy (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn [[Probable year::1975]]) . From these two cases, it is clear that at times, the right to privacy can limit the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, especially in cases presenting information in a false light.		Another specific example is Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn which took place in [[Probable year:: 1975]] (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn [[Probable year:: 1975]]) . Cohn was the father of a seventeen year old girl who had been raped and killed in Georgia. Cox Broadcasting had obtained the girl’s name from public records and broadcasted the name during a news report. According to a Georgia privacy statute, names and identities of rape victims cannot be publicized. The court ultimately decided that the girl’s name was not a matter of public interest, and hence sided with Cohn, that the incident was an invasion of privacy (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn [[Probable year:: 1975]]) . From these two cases, it is clear that at times, the right to privacy can limit the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, especially in cases presenting information in a false light.

	The second main conflict is that between the right to privacy and the right to obtain information. The press has a right to obtain information voluntarily from private sources, however, it does not have the right to compel such information. The press is generally restricted by laws against wiretapping, trespass, theft, etc. In terms of receiving information from government sources, the press can claim the constitutional right to know. The right to know is used for the purpose of informing and transmitting information to the public, especially when the government is barring such communication (Emerson [[Probable year::1979]], 333). There have however been cases in which the right of the press to obtain information has been limited for privacy concerns. For instance, in Pell v. Procunier journalists were prevented from interviewing prison inmates (Pell v. Procunier [[Probable year::1974]]) . Similar to the conflict between the right to publish and privacy, in many cases involving the right of the press to obtain information, the court attempts to balance the public’s right to know with privacy concerns. In the case of Pell v. Procunier, interviewing the inmates would not have provided the public with important information regarding the conditions of the prisons, and therefore the privacy of the inmates was upheld (Pell v. Procunier [[Probable year::1974]]) .		The second main conflict is that between the right to privacy and the right to obtain information. The press has a right to obtain information voluntarily from private sources, however, it does not have the right to compel such information. The press is generally restricted by laws against wiretapping, trespass, theft, etc. In terms of receiving information from government sources, the press can claim the constitutional right to know. The right to know is used for the purpose of informing and transmitting information to the public, especially when the government is barring such communication (Emerson [[Probable year:: 1979]], 333). There have however been cases in which the right of the press to obtain information has been limited for privacy concerns. For instance, in Pell v. Procunier journalists were prevented from interviewing prison inmates (Pell v. Procunier [[Probable year:: 1974]]) . Similar to the conflict between the right to publish and privacy, in many cases involving the right of the press to obtain information, the court attempts to balance the public’s right to know with privacy concerns. In the case of Pell v. Procunier, interviewing the inmates would not have provided the public with important information regarding the conditions of the prisons, and therefore the privacy of the inmates was upheld (Pell v. Procunier [[Probable year:: 1974]]) .

	As of [[Probable year::1996]], the Federal Freedom of Information Act was passed which gives public access to many federal records. However, there are nine exemptions to the Act that restrict public access to certain health and medical records, documents for the purpose of law enforcement, trade secrets or classified documents, among others. These exemptions are commonly referred to in right to know cases. Additionally, the Government in Sunshine Act of [[Probable year::1976]] ensures that federal agency meetings are open to the public. An exception to this act is made in cases where the meetings contain, “information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The phrase, “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” has been broadly interpreted. Overall, the conflicts surrounding freedom of the press and privacy lack consistent legal procedure (Emerson [[Probable year::1979]], 351).		As of [[Probable year:: 1996]], the Federal Freedom of Information Act was passed which gives public access to many federal records. However, there are nine exemptions to the Act that restrict public access to certain health and medical records, documents for the purpose of law enforcement, trade secrets or classified documents, among others. These exemptions are commonly referred to in right to know cases. Additionally, the Government in Sunshine Act of [[Probable year:: 1976]] ensures that federal agency meetings are open to the public. An exception to this act is made in cases where the meetings contain, “information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The phrase, “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” has been broadly interpreted. Overall, the conflicts surrounding freedom of the press and privacy lack consistent legal procedure (Emerson [[Probable year:: 1979]], 351).


	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-11-25T19:53:46Z

transformed

New page

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of the Press
|section=Conflicts with other Rights
|question=Other fundamental
|questionHeading=Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=A fundamental right that tends to conflict with freedom of the press is the right to privacy, which includes the protection of reputation. Two common conflicts between freedom of the press and the right to privacy are that between the right to publish and privacy and that between the right of the press to obtain information and the right to privacy. Beginning with the conflict between the right to publish and privacy, the issues concern the disclosure of embarrassing factual information about a person and the publishing of information that falsely displays a person to the public (Emerson [[Probable year::1979]], 332). Historically, in cases where privacy law is applicable, the courts have tended to balance the importance of the publication for news purposes with the extent of the invasion of privacy. For instance, if the publication is not thought to be newsworthy or necessary, but most people would view it as offensive, the court would allow a claim to privacy. Although, the same claim to privacy may not stand in a case in which the publication is considered newsworthy. Similarly, in defamation cases, courts consider the extent to which reputation is harmed, and therefore courts may be more likely to protect the reputation of a public figure over that of someone more private (Emerson [[Probable year::1979]], 333).

A specific case involving the conflict between the right to publish and privacy is Time Inc. v. Hill which took place in [[Probable year::1967]] (Time, Inc. v. Hill [[Probable year::1967]]) . Hill and his family were held hostage in their home in [[Probable year::1952]], and upon being released unharmed, they moved homes and requested limited publicity about what took place. Later, a novel came out about a similar situation which was also made into a play. Life magazine published an article about the play suggesting that it was a depiction of what happened to Hill’s family, even though the play reflected various incidents. The family sued for damages on the grounds that Life had knowingly presented false information about the Hill incident. Life suggested that the article was of public interest and was not published with malicious intent. The court determined that the Life article was not intended to be a source of news, but was rather distributed for advertising purposes. Subsequently, the family received compensatory damages (Time, Inc. v. Hill [[Probable year::1967]]) .

Another specific example is Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn which took place in [[Probable year::1975]] (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn [[Probable year::1975]]) . Cohn was the father of a seventeen year old girl who had been raped and killed in Georgia. Cox Broadcasting had obtained the girl’s name from public records and broadcasted the name during a news report. According to a Georgia privacy statute, names and identities of rape victims cannot be publicized. The court ultimately decided that the girl’s name was not a matter of public interest, and hence sided with Cohn, that the incident was an invasion of privacy (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn [[Probable year::1975]]) . From these two cases, it is clear that at times, the right to privacy can limit the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, especially in cases presenting information in a false light.

The second main conflict is that between the right to privacy and the right to obtain information. The press has a right to obtain information voluntarily from private sources, however, it does not have the right to compel such information. The press is generally restricted by laws against wiretapping, trespass, theft, etc. In terms of receiving information from government sources, the press can claim the constitutional right to know. The right to know is used for the purpose of informing and transmitting information to the public, especially when the government is barring such communication (Emerson [[Probable year::1979]], 333). There have however been cases in which the right of the press to obtain information has been limited for privacy concerns. For instance, in Pell v. Procunier journalists were prevented from interviewing prison inmates (Pell v. Procunier [[Probable year::1974]]) . Similar to the conflict between the right to publish and privacy, in many cases involving the right of the press to obtain information, the court attempts to balance the public’s right to know with privacy concerns. In the case of Pell v. Procunier, interviewing the inmates would not have provided the public with important information regarding the conditions of the prisons, and therefore the privacy of the inmates was upheld (Pell v. Procunier [[Probable year::1974]]) .

As of [[Probable year::1996]], the Federal Freedom of Information Act was passed which gives public access to many federal records. However, there are nine exemptions to the Act that restrict public access to certain health and medical records, documents for the purpose of law enforcement, trade secrets or classified documents, among others. These exemptions are commonly referred to in right to know cases. Additionally, the Government in Sunshine Act of [[Probable year::1976]] ensures that federal agency meetings are open to the public. An exception to this act is made in cases where the meetings contain, “information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The phrase, “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” has been broadly interpreted. Overall, the conflicts surrounding freedom of the press and privacy lack consistent legal procedure (Emerson [[Probable year::1979]], 351).

}}