Directions: Type your answers. Submit your answers on D2L, and print and bring to class. Answer the questions in complete sentences using your own words.
Chapter 5: Freedom and Privacy
1. Why did Judge Clark’s opinion in Sidis v. F-R Publishing Company not mention the First Amendment? (1 point)
There was the matter of the privacy, as the people have the concern about their privacy, or they had the private life, said by the Clark. There was the weakness in the American privacy law, the law or the standards have the private information about the about the strong tradition of the First Amendments freedom, however, the press cannot explain about the right to publish and interpret about the thrust people. There was the matter of the privacy and over explore the internet, based on this reason the law has struck between the matter of the privacy and the media exposure (Lewis, 2010, pg.61).
2. Which interests did the judge balance when reaching his decision in the SIDS case? (2 points)
The judge was deeply interested in the case; there was the freedom of speech. However, while reaching to the decision, to balance the case the privacy by the publication concerned; however, it was the public matter, about the privacy concern so the sidis in court remains the dominant, the judge balance by saying leaves it to press, because it is public life and the matter of a public interest. In the court, there two matters were focused, right of the speech, public, and freedom of the press. So that there could balance before taking the right decision (Lewis, 2010, pg.62).
3. What did the ruling in the Sidiscase mean for public figures and the press? (1 point)
A ruling for Sidis case means that first time in the country, there was the right given, to prevent the publication about someone’s life, or what one is doing, however, the matter was of the general or public interest. While considering the case, the first amendment was also considered, however, there is right to know about the interest of the public, there are the constitutional rights to access the news. It is the choice of the public and press that what they wanted to see and as there should be free dimensions of the news and information (Lewis, 2010, pg 73).
4. Do you think that applying this standard to all public figures (such as famous people like William James Sidis) instead of just government officials serves the original purpose of freedom of the press? Why or why not? (2 points)
In my point of view, there is the need to give the equal rights to all the people, the famous people like Sidis and the other governmental officials should be treated in the same way. As it is, the right of all the people to be given equality, however, whenever public figure and press concerned, there is a need to give the freedom of speech and freedom of media explore so the things could balance. As we have studied that media should be given right because it is the public matter, therefore there is need to set standards for all (Lewis, 2010, pg 62).
5. In the case of Bartnicki v. Vopper, how does Justice Breyer argue that the right to privacy actually encourages and protects free speech? (2 points)
The case of the Bartinicki v. Vopper, who have recorded about the labors while they talking about the teachers. The laws were implemented on them because it is wrong to record something without someone’s permission. However, freedom of speech and freedom of the press was augmented by the Breyer, argued that right to privacy are there and in this way free speech can be protected. However, the judge of the case or the Supreme Court were against, as they think that it is a criminal act to leave someone, who recorded the voices because it is the matter of the privacy (Lewis, 2010, pg 75).
Chapter 6: A Press Privilege?
6.In the case Branzburg v. Hayes how did the U.S. Supreme Court hold on the issue of whether a reporter has the right to refuse to testify? (1 point)
A testify before a grand jury allowed the reporter to be compelled, as in the case of Branzburg v. Hayes the government does not show the substantial relationship because the case was complicated and the court believe that it was a criminal conduct, as the confidential information was not protected. The Supreme Court take the charge, the court refuse the reporter privilege, the article was written on the Kentucky drug Hashish, the shield law was not implemented, and the protection against was not given by the state court (Lewis, 2010, pg.83).
7. Why do journalists continue to claim that there is a press privilege even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Branzburg? (2 points)
The journalist was on right because they know that no decision is taken in their favor, it is the right of the press to have the freedom, they did the contract with the citizens, who had created, the use of the drugs. Branzburg, think that their activity is legal and take the promise that not to reveal the identities. However, the Supreme Court takes the decision or charge against, that things should not be hidden from the Court, however, the journalist in this way claim the press that the decision of Supreme Court was against them (Lewis, 2010, pg.83).
8. What are shield laws and in which courts do they apply? (1 point)
There are the laws created for the benefits of the reporters and the media, however, the shield laws are the legislations that are designed to protect the reporters; it is the right of the reporter that he should have the freedom of choice. He can argue to government and Supreme Court if the legislations are not given to him. However, the privilege is given to the reporter in this way, as he can refuse to testify the information. Most of the States have the shield laws, under which the reporters are protected. U.S Supreme Court implement on the shield laws (Lewis, 2010, pg 91).
Reader Questions (2 points)
What questions do you have after reading these chapters? Were there concepts that you did not understand or ideas that you would like to discuss in more detail? Write down at least two questions to share with your classmates:
After reading the chapters, I have understood the rights that the reporter and media have, as no one can challenge media, a reporter has the power, until and unless government laws support them. However, the questions could be:
If there are the Shield laws, then why not all courts use them?
Why there are no set regulations on the encouragement of the
privacy or free speech?
Lewis, A. (2010). Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Basic Books.