First Amendment Protection of Journalists Essay Example for Free

First Amendment Protection of Journalists Essay The First Amendment of the US Constitution has special provisions for freedom of expression speech and press. It has clearly defined that The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed† (FindLaw, 2004). There were several instances of debates and discussions on the protection of journalism under the provisions of the First Amendment. Constitutionalists agree on the point that the liberty of the press is essential for the well-being of a free state. Every person has the right to express his feelings before the public. Journalists do the same thing. They investigate on their own and provide the information regarding the policies of the government and other agencies to the public. If a journalist is not allowed to express his opinions, then it is a clear infringement into his rights. Journalists always have always used anonymous sources to gather information. It has become a part of investigational journalism. However, several times in the past, press has been subjected to castigation for reporting about the secret policies of the government quoting anonymous sources. There was always pressure on the journalists to reveal their confidential sources. Need of the First Amendment Protection of Journalists The recent incident involving former New York Times reporter, Judith Miller has unleashed a debate on the protection of confidential sources in journalism. Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller had to spend 85 days in jail for refusing to identify confidential sources during the investigation into the disclosure of a CIA agents identity. Eventually, she was forced to step down after working 28 years at the Times (The New York Times, 2005). It is always believed that a journalist has the right to protect the identity of a source. It may be true that this right is not absolute. There should be a limit on that to prevent any misuse of journalism expression. However, punishing the journalists for their reporting is not a right solution. The identification of anonymous sources may lead to suppression of information. The Times believes that First Amendment right to speech includes a right for the journalists in which they are not supposed to speak during the testimony in a criminal investigation. The freedom of the press to publish without any limitation is one of the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment. However, recent incidents such as the detention of Miller raised serious questions. If the journalists will be forced to reveal their sources of information, then it is unlikely that they would get more information in future. Persons, who reveal the secrets anonymously, will never provide useful information to the journalists if their identities are disclosed before the investigation agency. They would be forced to conceal the information to themselves. As a result, the public will never know the truth. If we look at the history, the First Amendment supported the freedom of press and the journalists in some instances. â€Å"In the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, the US government attempted to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing classified documents about the Vietnam War. The government claimed that publication of such documents would jeopardize the foreign policy and prolong the war. However, the Court did not buy the arguments and dismissed them as speculations† (Powe, 1991). However, in most of the cases, it has been noticed that the First Amendment do not provide adequate protection to the journalists. Even the judges expressed their concern in some cases. In a 2002 judgment, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought† (ALA, 2002). The International Federation of Journalists has accused the United States administration of suppressing the freedom of expression by forcing journalists to disclose confidential sources of information. They believe that this is a violation of the First Amendment. In most of the cases, journalists are bullied by judges and investigating agencies. A number of high-profile legal actions against journalists have sparked a national campaign among press freedom campaigners and journalists. Journalists feel that they have stood up firmly for the First Amendment principles (IFJ, 2004). The identification of sources has become very common in the US history. Several judgments in the recent past, asked the journalists to reveal the identity of their sources. Also, in some instances they ruled that it is the right of journalists to protect their sources. The differences of opinions have made one thing clear that there is a need for a clear and visible law that would protect the rights of journalism and journalists. It is to be remembered that by protecting their sources, the journalists are just saving the whistleblowers from facing retribution. If the confidential sources are exposed, common people will be deprived of their right to know the truth. Need of a National Shield Law Earl Caldwell, a correspondent for the New York Times, was the only journalist at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. He established a rapport with the Black Panthers and had access to their confidential conversations with them. When FBI asked him to provide the notes, Earl Caldwell, a correspondent for the New York Times, was the only journalist at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. He established a rapport with the Black Panthers and had access to their confidential conversations with them (Montiel, 2005). When FBI asked him to provide the notes, he declined and took the mater to the Court. In 1970, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognized the existence of a protection for the journalists under the First Amendment. It rules that Caldwell did not have to identify his sources unless the government could show the real need for his testimony and the proof that such information could not be obtained elsewhere. The government appealed against this order in the Supreme Court. After long discussions, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Caldwell. This is an example how the judges themselves were not sure about the provisions of the First Amendment. His fight against the government led to the expansion of state shield laws protecting journalists (Montiel, 2005). The Caldwell case became the most famous one related to the First Amendment and freedom of press. It stressed on the need for federal law to protect the journalists from indictment and harassment. The state shield laws were expanded and associations were formed. â€Å"After the Caldwell case, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press was formed, which worked for preservation of journalistic rights under the First Amendment† (Montiel, 2005). It has been noticed that in the cases related to the protection of journalists under the First Amendment, judges expressed different opinions. Hence, it is very much important to have a common law which bring all of them into a common platform and provide relief to the journalists who often suffer for no fault. It is their compulsion and responsibility to protect the confidentiality of sources as they obtain the information on that promise. Contradiction in federal court rulings forced many state courts and legislatures to interpret the First Amendment from different angles. To protect journalists from unjustified testimonies, 31 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws known as shield laws (First Amendment Center, 2004). However, state shield laws often fail to guarantee the protection to the journalists. In todays digital world, most of the journalists work through television and Internet, thus securing a good name on the national and international stage. Without a national shield law, it will not be possible for them work independently without any prosecution for concealing their sources. A national shield law will not only benefit the journalists, but also it will do justice to the public. If the journalists fail to protect their private communication with people who provide useful information anonymously, it will be an infringement into their personal rights. Nobody can expect the common men to stand up openly and divulge the secrets that public should know. They would definitely be concerned about their own safety and security. Hence, such people, called as whistleblowers depend on journalists to air their grievances against the system and corrupt authorities. If their identities are not protected, it will deter others from providing useful information to expose the corrupt officials and leaders. Recently, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn proposed the legislation for protecting the journalists under the First Amendment. If the law is passed, journalists would not be forced to reveal their sources. Their notes, photographs and other materials would be protected from the federal courts, government and investigating agencies. The bill says that a court could force a journalist to disclose the sources only if that cannot be obtained anywhere else and are related to public interest (First Amendment Center, 2004). In the past few years, there have been several instances of judges threatening the journalists with fines or jails if they fail to reveal sources. The state shield laws will not serve the purpose of freedom of press. It is necessary formulate a national shield law to deal with such issues. The above bill introduced by Senator Dodd could be an important step on this regard. Conclusion In the wake of the current debate over the protection of journalists under the First Amendment, we have to look on this issue with a humanitarian approach. The press is always called as the mirror of the society. Journalists are the true soldiers of the press who always intend to uphold its value and ethics. Protecting their rights is very important for the wellbeing of the society. Prosecution of journalists for a no-crime may not augur well for people’s belief in constitutional rights. Adequate steps should be taken to pass a strong law that would protect the journalists and the confidentiality of their sources. They are well within their rights not to disclose their sources and they should not be compelled to do that. It should be kept in mind that whatever they are doing is for the benefit of the public and the society. Bibliography Allen, David S. , Jensen, Robert, editors. (1995). Freeing the First Amendment: Critical Perspectives on Freedom of Expression. New York: New York University Press. American Library Association (ALA). (2002). Retrieved 15 November 2005.