Media Law and Ethics - Assignment Example

Media law and Ethics Qn1). The court’s decision had an impact on the US libel law. Initially, the court in Alabama ruled the case in favor of Sullivan, alleging that Sullivan did not have to prove the harm against him. The appeal by the New York Times to the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the case. The verdict by the Supreme Court was in accordance to the first amendment which safeguards the release of public statements even when they are not true. The change of the ruling by Justice Brennan held the facts of the US constitution’s first amendment, which protects freedom of the press.

The Sullivan decision left questions on the applicability of the first amendment; protecting the press even under false claims can infringe personal rights. I support the majority opinion because there is more than one member of the court participating in the agreement to a decision. In addition, the members provide a description of the technique used to make a decision. Qn2 ). The sixth amendment of the US constitution states that criminal trials should be made public, and information published for the reason of defending the right of the offender.

In Bridges v. California, the court fined the defendant after finding him in contempt of court. Harry Bridges was alleged to have written a telegram to the labor secretary demanding to pend the case, failure to which he would have the union go on strike. An appeal to the Supreme Court found the fines imposed to the defendant unconstitutional. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, the defendant, convicted of murder, won a trial after his defense attorney managed to convince the court that the publication of the case by the media infringed rights for a fair trial.

This decision contrasts Bridges v. California where the Supreme Court finds involvement of the media a constitutional act. In Nebraska Press v. Stuart, the attempt to restrict exposure of information concerning the confession of the defendant was found unconstitutional. Qn3). The first amendment does not protect speech that involves incitement. This is because such speech can lead to unlawful action such as violence. According to the first amendment, obscene material is not liable for protection.

In Miller v. California, the defendant’s connection with sexually explicit material was an infringement of California statute. A speech that causes panic to persons in public places is unprotected. For example, a person claiming presence of a bomb in a public gathering may cause unnecessary panic. Other unprotected speech includes that which involves sedition and offensive speech. Qn4). The judge must analyze the statement of the first amendment in regard to freedom of press before making decisions to stop the press from making any release of information.

The judge must be aware of the impact exposure of information to the public has to the proceeding of the case. The court must investigate the impact of publication to the defendant. For example, there should be adequacy of knowledge of rights for a fair trial for the defendant. Qn5). The Daily constitutional should not run the story because the story will raise questions to the public of the importance of the operation. Bearing in mind, that the president has not yet approved the operation, public concern can influence the decision taken by the president.

Running the story can raise international concern over the US participation in such an operation. Contacting the CIA director would be a better action because he can advise the daily constitutional on the impacts of the publication. There is a liability of running the story in case the military files a case to the court. The espionage act sometimes applies to cases that intend to interfere with military operations. Publication of such information may land the editor to a court of law. The courts would rule in favor of the government.

This would be an exception to the first amendment which supports freedom of the press. In the United States v. progressive, there was a court injunction to prevent publication of information regarding the secret of the hydrogen bomb. Qn6). In for Zoffin to win the case, he will have to provide information regarding the publisher as neglectful of refusing to establish that the story was defamatory. Zoffin will have to prove that the story was malicious. Zoffin is a private figure because she has no job and does not have considerable contact with the public.

The court may rule the case in support of the plaintiff because the story has several similarities that target the plaintiff. Although the first amendment protects freedom of press, deformation is an exception. A trial is advantageous because it can lead to reduced charges. In addition, it can pave the way to negotiations leading to settlement of the case with fewer costs. Trial offers information to the opposing party, hence risks of defeat in the courts. Works cited NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN.

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 08 October 2012. .