Americans are a group of people who tend to very concerned about their rights, specifically those outlined in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. However, it seems that new technology is creating situations where some rights come into conflict with each other. This new technology is the video camera. In most situations, a camera, or the usage of one, will not impede upon a person’s rights. However, people have brought up that the presence of cameras in a courtroom may impose upon the right of a fair case by distracting and affecting everyone in the courtroom. Now the solution to this problem seems obvious; ban cameras from the court. However, doing that infringes upon another basic right granted to American citizens; the freedom of press. American citizens have the right to document and publish almost anything. The banning of cameras from courtrooms can diminish a person’s ability to accurately document a court proceeding. So what can we do about this?
The only solution that I believe is fair is to film a court proceeding in its entirety and then publish it in its unedited entirety...
The question of paparazzi threatening privacy and First Amendment rights is often to situational to argue in a conventional manner, but certainly there are many facets of the issue which can be addressed in a quite straightforward manner. Celebrities who feel they have the right to privacy in public places often muddy the waters of this issue. Oddly enough, those celebrities who have chosen to speak out against what they feel are violations of their privacy most always begin their campaigns with a large press conference. In other words, they gather together those people they wish to not only suppress but also berate in hopes that these people will use their positions and skills to carry these celebrity's messages to the public. Is often seems that theses celebrities want it "both ways" in that they appreciate coverage when they have a movie, record, or book coming out, but not at any other time.
In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the case of the Pentagon Papers the necessities of individual freedoms supersedes the scope of the national government.
While researching this issue, I wanted to see what my State laws were and how it pertained to the question at hand. “Historically, access to courtrooms and adjacent areas to broadcast, televise, record and photograph court proceedings was tenuous, particularly after the media coverage of the Sam Shepard trial in the 1950s caused many courts to close their doors to the media. Then, on October 29, 1991, the Supreme Court of Missouri established a task force to determine whether cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. After considering the issue, the task force recommended that the Supreme Court adopt a rule authorizing broadcasting, televising, recording and taking photographs in Missouri courtrooms on an experimental basis and under controlled conditions. This rule derived from the Court's constitutional authority to
The trial of the century, as the O.J. Simpson case came to be known brought the world to a standstill. The publicity before, during and after the trial proceedings was the astonishing. Pretrial publicity brought upon issues that required the application of relevant cases and the amendments of the constitution. With such a famous person as the main suspect in a murder trial the media wanted to provide as much information to the public as they possibly could. The 1st Amendment of the United States gives the media a right to gather and report information to the public. (Sager, 1994-1995) The 6th Amendment allows all persons to have a fair trial; this is a concern to the defendants, if the media is providing information to the public that could later be used at trial. For example, the media wanted to have access to the 911 audio tape of the 1989 call that Nicole Brown Simpson made to the police. (Burleigh, 1994) In this tape, O.J. Simpson can be heard in the background angry and yelling obscenities towards Nicole. You can also hear Nicole trying to calm him down. These audio tapes were to be a large part of the trial, but whether they would be admissible or excluded had yet to be determined. If the public obtained these tapes, they would be played all throughout the TV and transcribed into the newspapers and tabloid magazines. Releasing this information could potentially contaminate the jury pool and cause an unfair biased towards the defense. Eventually, with the California Public Records Act the audio tapes were released to the public before they were approved for trial. (Burleigh, 1994)
For the court observation assignment, I visited the Tolland County Courthouse. I went to court on Tuesday April 4th, 2017 from 11am to 12:30pm. The matters I observed in the courtroom regarded a restraining order from an ex-girlfriend to her ex-boyfriend. The details involved in the case included the welfare of their three-month-old baby and the custody battle.
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
There is a question as to whether the court should have the right to decide whether to enforce constitutionality based on what is explicitly written within the Constitution or what the court decides is implied protections within the Constitution. The Bill of Rights covers multiples protections including the right to privacy in beliefs, unlawful search and seizure without a warrant, and personal information. It is my personal belief that the court should consider the implied protections of the Constitution in addition to what is explicitly written. The simplest justification for this is that the world and needs to people within the United States have changed drastically since the 18th century when the Constitution was written. With that said, as the world transitions from one focused on private life to one that is considerably more open through social media and the constant exposure that individuals permit, the court will also find themselves needing to define public and private areas of the individual’s life and rights in order to maintain consistency.
It’s Time to Remove Cameras from the Courtroom! Is Judy still keeping audiences entertained by giving the court system a new attitude? Will court systems ever get back to their dignity? Not as long as the cameras still work. Cameras in the courtroom have been very beneficial in certain cases, but it has caused a lot of harm.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, although that guarantee is not unrestricted (Applegate, 2007). Freedom of speech should not be subjected to political interference; yet, censorship is necessary in matters of national and military security (Applegate, 2007). Members of the press enjoy the First Amendment of free speech and free expression, but face criminal or tort liability if reporting is done undercover or information is leaked (West, 2014). I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the basic right of all reporters, as it is for all individuals. However, correspondents should conform to the highest ethical standards, respect the privacy of all citizens, and maintain the highest regard for confidentiality
In terms of the rights of the people, one can argue that there is no such thing as too much news. Across the masthead of many American newspapers are inscribed the words from Scripture, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." The Founding Fathers believed that a free press was a necessary protection of the individual from the government. Justice Brandeis saw a free press as providing the information that a person needed to fulfill the obligations of citizenship. Probably in no other area is the nature of a right changing as rapidly as it is in the gathering and dissemination of information by the press, but the task remains the same. The First Amendment's Press Clause continues to be a structural bulwark of democracy and of the people.
Zelezny, J. (2011). Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media. Boston, MA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.
Since the foundation of the United States after a harsh split from Britain, almost 200 years later, an issue that could claim the founding grounds for the country is now being challenged by educators, high-ranking officials, and other countries. Though it is being challenged, many libertarians, democrats, and free-speech thinkers hold the claim that censorship violates our so-called unalienable rights, as it has been proven throughout many court cases. Censorship in the United States is detrimental because it has drastically and negatively altered many significant events. Censorship allows governments more control of society than they already have, slowly progressing governments utilizing censorship to a dictatorship. Often times, this censorship can lead to immense rebellions.
Freedom of Speech is what this country’s constitution gives its people. Even so, we have to be conscious that putting into effect these right require sense of duty. For that reason, the media is a essential element in today culture and has turn out to be the primary impact and it has an outcome on our nations’ future, viewpoint, and the globe’s view of us. As a result, the media are responsible for mainstream America ideals and the familiarity of the image based on the impact from the media. The media are fundamental of social influence and political decisions. Additionally the media has the responsibility to give readers, viewers and listeners accuracy and accountable. Nonetheless, the media should uphold fairness and meticulousness (Pulliam, 1996-2012). For this purpose, the media has assembled into the most crucial aspect of our era, influencing every citizen settling the unease relating to media responsibility today, but also challenging to characterize the importance of the responsibility. The media are what we read, listen to and watch; the foremost impact is psychological, intellectual and share commercial implications. A utilitarian purpose can be proficient only through an endeavor to add diverse ethical standards established by the social order to improve our society. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances “ (Bhagwat, 2011). Hence, the media is responsible for the way we perceive and build our own personal views of the world and the way it operates. Thereupon ...