October 2, 2011
Cox Broadcasting vs. Cohn
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7693360934058091897&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Facts of Case:
In August 1971, the 17 year old daughter of Martin Cohn was the victim of rape. She did not survive the incident and six
young men were indicted for murder and rape. Since this was such an unfortunate event, there are a substantial amount of press coverage surrounding the crime and trial. Although there was a large amount of press coverage, the name of the
victim was not disclosed due to the Georgia statute that says it is a crime to publish or broadcast the name of a rape victim. Eight months after the actual crime was committed, the six young men appeared in court. Since the charge for murder was dropped, five of the six pleaded guilty to rape or attempted rape. The pleas were accepted by
the court and the trial of the other young man pleading not guilty was set for another time.
During the time of the trial, a
reporter who worked for WSB-TV, a television station owned by Cox Broadcasting,
was given access to indictments for the case which had the victim’s name in
them. Since the indictments were considered public record, the reporter aired
the victim’s identity in a broadcast news report later that day. The report
containing the name was also aired several times after the initial
broadcasting.
In May 1972, Martin Cohn, the father of the rape victim, sued Cox Broadcasting for damages for his right to
privacy being violated due to the announcement of his daughter’s identity. Cox Broadcasting admitted to airing the name, but said they had to that privilege under state laws and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The case was appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court were they rejected Cox Broadcasting’s claim of the victim’s identity being of public interest and therefore could be published.
2. Legal Issue:
The legal issue in the case in whether a State may have laws that allow individuals to sue for damages for invasion of
privacy caused by the publication of the name of a deceased rape victim which was
revealed during the time of prosecution for the crime.
3. Decision:
The Supreme Court voted 8-1 in favor of Cox Broadcasting, reversing the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court.
4. Analysis:
The reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision is that once information is published in public court documents and
open to public inspection, the press cannot be punished for publishing it. They said that it is the media’s job to report of the activities of the government, which includes court cases. By publishing the victim’s name the media was doing
its job as acting as a watchdog for the public.
Questions:
- In your opinion, do you think that Cox Broadcasting was ethically correct in publishing the rape victim’s identity?
- If this case happened today, do you think the outcome would be the same?
- Do you agree with the Supreme Court when it said that the media was doing its job by disclosing the victim’s name? Could the media have made the public aware and done its job without disclosing the name of the victim?
3 thoughts on “Cox Broadcasting vs. Cohn (1975)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 3rd, 2011 at 7:10 pm
1. I do not think that Cox Broadcasting was ethically correct in publishing the victim’s identity. I do not see how knowing who the victim was, was necessary for viewers. Since she was a minor and the crime was so heinous I think the reporters should have been more respectful to the family of the victim. If for some reason the parents of the victim were famous (or a political public figure) then there might be more incentive for the reporter to identify the victim, but as a private figure I do not think this was right.
2. According to two similar cases based in Florida, (concerning a state criminal statute that penalized media outlets for identifying names of sexual assault victims) were found in favor of the media being protected under First Amendment rights to be able to publish this type of information, I would say that yes the court ruling would be the same in today’s society.
3. I feel torn on this issue. On one hand, yes, the information was public knowledge and maybe some support or awareness came from publicizing this information. Especially since the victim was given an identity which makes it more affecting. On the other hand I think about myself and if I was the family member of the girl, I would want the option to choose whether our private life is private or not. Especially since this is such a horrible tragedy.
October 3rd, 2011 at 9:26 pm
I do not agree with the court’s decision. I think that the Cox Broadcasting should not of identified the 17 year old victim. The victim was underage and now the family has to suffer even more awful situation that is occurring by the press invading their privacy. I agree with Darcy when she states that if the family or parent were famous then the identity of the victim would have more relevant to the public.
In today’s society I do believe that the court would rule in the same as in this case.
A part of the code of ethics for a journalist is to seek the truth and report it. In a way I agree with the court when said that the media was doing its job by disclosing the victim’s name but on the other hand had the victim been overage the case may of minimized harm.
October 6th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
I do not agree with Cox Publishing Co. airing the victims name. Since the crime was so awful and with her being a minor, even though she has passed away from the crime, I do not think it was a good idea for them to air her name. It causes harm, and unwanted attention to the family of the victim. Also, I agree with the two other responses that today’s court would agree with this ruling for future cases. Lastly, I do not agree with the court stating that the media was doing its job by disclosing the name. Yes, the media is doing there job by seeking the truth but they are not following other codes of ethics, especially minimizing harm. Journalists can pick one or the other SPJ Codes of Ethics, but in a situation like this, they should have definitely picked minimize harm instead of seeking the truth with stating the victims identity.