About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

66 Ky. L.J. 759 (1977-1978)
Media Reporting and Privacy Claims--Decline in Consitutional Protection for the Press

handle is hein.journals/kentlj66 and id is 769 raw text is: Media Reporting and Privacy Claims -Decline in Constitutional Protection for the Press By GERALD G. ASHDOWN* INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of the United States has frequently been faced with the task of safeguarding freedom of speech and press under the commands of the first amendment. This exer- cise has been complicated by the continual clash between free- dom of expression and some other value, both demanding pro- tection and deserving recognition. The court has had to balance these competing interests in order to reach a solution to the problems created by this conflict. Given the pervasive influ- ence and broad scope of the first amendment,I this value con- flict has characteristically been resolved by giving priority to freedom of speech and press.2 For example, in past decisions the Court has protected pornography,3 defamatory publica- tions,4 invasions of privacy,5 politial activity of a potentially disruptive nature,' and, at the expense of school administra- * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Kentucky. B.B.A. 1969, J.D. 1972, University of Iowa. The primary function of freedom of speech and press is to keep citizens informed so that they may govern themselves effectively. Meiklejohn, The First Amendment Is An Absolute, 1961 Sup. CT. Rav. 245, 254-56. See also Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 389 (1967); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940); Bloustein, The FirstAmend- ment and Privacy: The Supreme Court Justice and the Philosopher, 28 RurTanS L. REV. 41, 42-51 (1974). Freedom of speech also serves a self-fulfillment function, see T. EMERSON, THE SYSTEM OF FREEDOM OF ExPRESSION (1970). As such, freedom of expression protects not only each citizen in the transfer of ideas and information, but also preserves society itself through the facilitation of participatory democracy. I But see, e.g., United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968); Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1 (1961); Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36 (1961); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). E.g., Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973); Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). 1 See, e.g., Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 (1971); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). 5 E.g., Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967). 1 E.g., Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most