October 16, 2011
1. Facts
This trial took place from February of 1972 till it was decided on June 29,1972. The facts of this case as listed on http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Branzburg.html are that reporter Paul Branzburg witnessed the making and distributing of marijuana in Louisville, Kentucky of which he reported for the Courier-Journal. He used these unnamed sources in his articles promising them that he would keep their names anonymous. When the local authorities were made aware of this illegal activity the case was sent to a grand jury and they subpoenaed Branzburg in hopes that he would reveal his sources.
2. Legal Issue
The issue in this case is whether having newsmen testify in the court of law abridges the freedom of speech and press rights guaranteed in the first amendment. The court states that average citizen is not free to skip out on grand jury subpoenas and there is no legal issue that allows members of the press to do the same. The reporters argue that by forcing them to reveal their sources will hamper them as journalists by deterring potential future sources from giving them information under fear of their names being disclosed.
3. The Decision
The Supreme court ruled 5-4 against the existence of the free press clause in the constitution in allowing a member of the press to avoid subpoena based on his general reporting privileges. In regards to the claim that it will damage the way newsgathering is conducted in the future, the supreme court stated that for years the press has operated without any constitutional protection for its informants and has “flourished.”
4. The Analysis
The court in this case looked at whether the press was being hindered there rights of the First amendment that give them a freedom of speech and press. But in this case being that the story this reporter was writing was about illegal activity this information if kept anonymous a threat to the public. In regards to the claim that it will damage the way newsgathering is conducted in the future, the supreme court stated that for years the press has operated without any constitutional protection for its informants and has “flourished.”
5. Questions
1. Does the reporter have the right to keep his sources anonymous?
2. Why did the court feel that Branzburg should have to testify in court?
3. Does this ruling have an effect on how journalists gather their news?
5 thoughts on “Branzburg vs. Hayes(1972)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 19th, 2011 at 11:25 am
This ruling absolutely has an effect on how journalists gather news. Anonymous sources are vital for getting information on important stories revolving around crime, abuse of authority, and government wrongdoing. Without protections to keep anonymous sources unnamed,there can be a chilling effect on journalists’ usage of vital anonymous sources; sources which could be the only way to obtain important information of public interest.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
The ruling in this case had an effect on how journalists have on news gathering. If journalist revealed their sources that are anonymous then their sources will die out. Journalist want to avoid the chilling effect. I think journalist have the right to keep their sources identity anonymous. The court felt the journalist should testify in class because the journalist was writing about illegal activity. After this case, the Branzburg privilege test was created.
October 20th, 2011 at 1:57 am
1. A reporter has a right to use anonymous sources within a story, although I believe it should be for a very good reason, because it diminishes the story’s credibility. Sometimes anonymous sources are all a reporter has to use for a story, so he or she is left with no choice but to use them. Whether the reporter has the right to refuse to disclose anonymous’ sources identities, however, is determined on a case-by-case basis when legal action is taken.
2. The Supreme Court believed Branzburg had to testify in court because he was reporting on illegal activity with anonymous sources and had information about who committed the crimes. The Supreme Court believed withholding this information was wrong and wanted to take action against those who were distributing the marijuana.
3. This case absolutely had an effect on how journalists gather news today. By ruling against the free press clause in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court undoubtedly created a chilling effect on journalists’ ability to use anonymous sources in their stories. Rather than use the sources thoughtlessly and without fear, journalists must analyze if using an anonymous source is “really worth it,” for fear of the retributions that might come after the fact if legal action is taken.
October 24th, 2011 at 12:56 am
I agree with the courts decision. I believe that the or any reporter has the right to keep their sources confidential.
If journalists could be forced to reveal there sources this would lead to a chilling effect. Fewer people would come forward with information. If their identity is not protected they could get fired, ostracized, etc. With confidentiality people are more willing to divulge information.
December 14th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Just to clarify, the court didn’t rule against “the existence of the free press clause” in the constitution but rather said that reporter’s privilege does not exist in the constitution.