Globe Newspaper versus Superior Court - Essay Example

The new theory that the basic or paramount concern of an approach to the First Amendment should make the pivotal interest that of the reader, the listener and the viewer” (Blanchard, 1974, p. 409)
In the similar case of Red Lion Broadcasting V. FCC, 395 US 367 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the “Fairness Doctrine” did not violate the First Amendment. According to Justice Black, the imposition of penalties on the broadcasters did not transgress the spirit of the First Amendment. The Fairness Doctrine states that “broadcasters are given airtime to freely discuss matters which cover national interest, to present the opposing views in the form of news segments, radio talk shows, public affairs shows or even editorials. The Fairness Doctrine which includes the personal attacks and the politician editorializing ruled were all designed to provide a structure for dialogue” (Blanchard, 1974, p. 410).

It is undeniable that there are also evils in the press. There are countless instances where the broadcast media and the press is guilty of committing error and inaccurate reports. However, “the media, even if guilty of misrepresentation, must also be protected, if freedom of the press are to have the breathing space that they need to survive” (Blanchard, 1974, p. 414).
In the case at bar, the Court ruled that Massachusetts law violated the First Amendment. It relied on the previous decision of Richmond Newspapers V. Virginia, 448 US 555 (1980), where the Court held the First Amendment covers the freedom to listen and to receive information and ideas. The Court also emphasized that the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly in public places, which include courthouses. The Massachusetts court relied heavily on the Massachusetts statutes which excluded the general public from trials involving sexual offenses of victims who are under the age of 18 and ordered that the press and public be excluded from the courtroom during the trial of a defendant, who was faced with charges of rape of three minor girls. Globe Newspaper Co.

Although the right of access to criminal trials is not absolute, there are circumstances, when the press and public are denied access, is limited. The State must show that “denial of such right is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The First Amendment allows the right of access to criminal trials to ensure that the constitutionally protected "discussion of governmental affairs" is an informed one. The right of access to criminal trials in particular is properly afforded protection because such trials have historically been open to the press and public and because such right of access plays a particularly significant role in the functioning of the judicial process and the government as a whole” (Globe Newspaper Co.).
Justice Brennan pointed out that the only justification to disallow media and the press from attending a trial that concerns sex offenses of minors is to serve a compelling state interest. The Court found that no such interest was present in the case at bar. According to J. Brennan, although protecting the psychological, mental, and emotional well-being of a minor may fall within the concept of compelling interest, the “mandatory closure rule" is not to be made applicable, since each case should be treated differently, as the circumstances vary in every case. The second justification to allow the presence of the media in the trial is that there was no clear and convincing evidence to prove that victims of similar nature will come out in the open if the press and the public as a whole, were to be excluded from attending such trials involving this issue.

The Media and the press should not be prevented from attending the trials in the future especially if the public has the right to know what transpired in the hearing of cases that are imbued with national interest such as the case at the bar. They have an obligation they owe to the public and provide reports which are accurate, honest, and purely based on facts to get the points straight and clear. The freedom of the press is a constitutionally guaranteed right that cannot be withheld, if based only on flimsy, baseless, and unjustifiable circumstances. The Courts have no right to interfere and thwart the exercise of this right if it does not find any compelling reason to do so.
As stated in Grosjean V. American Press Co., 297 US 233, the Supreme Court held that “the very concept of the freedom of the press requires that the news media be accorded a measure of autonomy and they should be free to pursue their investigations to their ends without fear of government interference”. Therefore, the media and the press should be granted ample opportunity and access to all sources, including court trials to give the public balanced reporting and to be able to present the issues fairly and without leaning toward any biases. Any government interference should be avoided to give the public the chance to form their judgments on issues of national interest concern based on the reports and issues presented to them through news broadcasts and journalism. Read More