Card Set Information

2011-05-03 04:28:20

Show Answers:

  1. FOIA
    Freedom Of Information Act

    Created in 1966 to protect agencies, gov't corporations, and part of the exec branch
  2. FOIA Procedures
    May file for written request of info w/in 10 days w/ possible 10 day extension

  3. Exemptions to FOIA
    • National Security
    • Agency rules/practices
    • Statutory
    • Confidential business info
    • Agency memoranda
    • Personnel, medical, etc. files
    • Law enforcement investigations
    • Banking reports
    • Info about wells/geog. etc.
  4. Federal Sunshine Act, 1976
    Federal Agencies must meet in public ("light of day")

    Same agencies as FOIA; has 10 exemptions
  5. Reporter's options to illegal agency closed meetings
    File suit within 60 days of closed mtg

    May sue agency, not individuals
  6. Zemel v. Rusk, 1964
    • F: Reporter wanted to go to Cuba despite State Dept. travel ban
    • I: USSC ruled right to publish doesn't carry right to gather info
  7. EPA v. Mink, 1973
    • F: Rep. Patsy Mink requested access to classified documents used to decide issue of nuclear testing
    • I: USSC rejected; motivated Congress to amend FOIA
  8. US v. Nixon, 1974
    • F: Nixon went to court to prevent the release of White House tapes to a prosecutor investigating Watergate
    • I: USSC ruled exec. privilege can only be asserted when material in question consists of military or diplomatic secrets
  9. Dept. of Air Force v. Rose, 1976
    • F: Law review editor requested info on Air Force Academy; access denied under personal privacy exemption
    • I: USSC declared the personal privacy exemption should not be read as an absolute barrier against disclosure of info
  10. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 1979
    • F: Auto labor union requested employee info that Chrysler filed with DOD. Chrysler did not want DOD to release info
    • I: USSC declared that an official may release info covered by one of the specified FOIA exemptions. CATCH-ALL must be followed
  11. Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 1980
    • F: Request was made for access to transcripts of Kissinger's phone convos. Library of Congress posessed nots.
    • I: "agency" does not apply to Library of Congress; FOIA does not apply to the institution
  12. Forsham v. Harris, 1980
    • F: Committee on the Care of Diabetics wanted the FDA to request specific data from a team of consultants on the effectiveness of various diabetes treatments
    • I: USSC held that FOIA cannot be used to compel a federal agency to obtain data
  13. Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE, 1980
    • F: GTE wanted to prevent info from being released to consumer publications on TVs exploding
    • I: USSC upheld the catch-all exemption
  14. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson, 1982
    • F: Nixon administration requested the FBI gather info on "enemies" of president
    • I: USSC held that law enforcement doesn't lose its protection when summarized or reproduced
  15. Pell v. Procunier, 1974
    • F: CA state correction authorities prohibited media interviews w/ specific indiv. inmates
    • I: USSC held that members of the media have no constitutional right of access to prisons or inmates beyond the gen. public
  16. Houchkins v. KQED, 1978
    • F: TV station was denied access to a portion of a jail where an inmate committed suicide
    • I: USSC extended Pell decision by limiting access of press in jailhouses
  17. Protection of a Confidential Source
    • 1. First Amendment
    • 2. State Shield Laws
    • 3. Common Law
  18. Garland v. Torre, 1958
    • F: Garland wanted to know who at CBS revealed to Torre that she was realeased from her contract. Torre refused.
    • I: Journalist must reveal his/her source if gov't or plaintiff can meet the three-part test
  19. Garland v. Torre, 1958
    Three Part Test
    • 1. Need of info goes to the "heart of the matter"
    • 2. Alternative sources have been exhausted
    • 3. Probably cause to believe journalist has relevant info
  20. Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972
    • F: Branzburg appealed two court orders to testify in front of grand juries investigating drug use/sales
    • I: USSC determined that journalists have no First Amendment rights to refuse to testify before a grand jury
  21. Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972
    Plaintiff must prove...
    • 1. Probable cause that journalist has relevant info
    • 2. Info sought cannot be obtained by alternative means
    • 3. "compelling and overriding interest in information"
  22. Criminal Procedings - in re Farber, 1978
    • F: Farber refused to produce notes of investigation into suspicious deaths in NJ hospital
    • I: Judges require journalists to turn over notes or names of sources to protect significant social interests
  23. Civil Proceedings - Herbert v. Lando, 1979
    I: a journalist's "state of mind" can be questioned
  24. Baker v. F&F Investment, 1973
    I: Source did not have to be met b/c three part test was not met; other sources had been exhausted
  25. State Shield Laws
    32 states have - MD is oldest

    • Consider:
    • - Courts interpretation of statute
    • - Who does it protect
    • - Is confidentiality required
    • - What info is protected
    • - Is publication required/status of publication
    • - etc.
  26. Farr v. Superior Court of California, 1971
    • F: Gag order issued regarding info connected with Manson murder trials
    • I: CA shield law was ignored; journalist had infor about a crime and had to reveal
  27. Brown v. Commonwealth, 1974
    I: Plaintiff had to prove info sought goes to the heart of the matter
  28. Riley v. Chester, 1979
    • Federal Common Law
    • - interpretation by courts "in light of reason and experience"
  29. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 1978
    • F: Photo journalist (student) took photos of police/student conflict; search warrant issued to collect all film, negatives, and prints for evidence
    • I: USSC held that law enforcement agencies could use a search warrant to search newsrooms for evidence
  30. Press Privacy Protection Act of 1980
    Law enforcement must meet burden of proof before a search warrant can be issued. A subpoena should be issued first.
  31. Minneapolis Star and Tribune v. US, 1989
    • F: FBI agents destroyed camera/film of a photo journalist covering an FBI arrest
    • I: DC Circuit ruled in favor of the media/required the FBI to pay damages and attorney fees
  32. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 1991
    • F: Cohen lost PR job after newspapers revealed his name in violation of a promise of confidentiality
    • I: USSC ruled Minnesota's promissory estoppel common law was NOT inviolation of 1st amend. Reporters need to be careful of what is promised to news sources
  33. Remedies for Prejudicial Publicity
    • Change of venue -
    • Change of venire -
    • Continuance -
    • Severance -
    • Voir dire -
    • Sequestration -
    • Judicial admonition -
    • New trial -
  34. Irvin v. Dowd, 1961
    • F: Leslie Irvin, murder in Indiana
    • I: USSC stated that statements by jurors could be given little weight when so many jurors admittedprejudice against the defendant
  35. Rideau v. Louisiana, 1963
    • F: Rideau confessed to murder - aired on local tv
    • I: USSC declared that the tv confession was real, which made trial pointless
  36. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966
    • F: Dr. Sheppard convicted for murdering his wife
    • I: USSC stressed that judges must ensure a dignified atmostphere in the court
  37. Murphy v. Florida, 1975
    • F: Murphy was arrested for robbery and assault
    • I: USSC held that members of the jury need not be totally ignorant of the facts and issues of a case.
  38. Prior Restraints on Media
    Gag orders on media and gag orders on news sources
  39. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 1976
    • F: Six members of a family were killed.
    • I: USSC ruled that gag order on the media are a prior restraint andshould ounly be used after less restrictive alternative text methods are used.
  40. Federated Publications v. Swedburg, 1981
    • F: reporters sign agreement -- not allowed in the courtroom
    • I: State supreme court ruled that Judge Swedburg's order was not a prior restraint
  41. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 1978
    • F: Virginia Pilot identified a judge being investigated
    • I: USSC held that accurate reporting of the conduct of public officials falls under the protection of the first amendment
  42. Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 1979
    I: VA statute was overbroad since in tsingled out only newspapers for punishment
  43. State of New Jersey v. Bruno Haupton, 1935
    • F: Bruno Hauptmann accused of kidnapping/killing Lindbergh's son.
    • I: media coverage outside the courtroom
  44. Estes v. Texas, 1965
    • F: Focus of national attention when he was charged with fraudulently
    • I: Cameras in courtroom would adversely impact jurors, defendants
  45. Chandler v. Florida, 1981
    • F: 2:55 of the burglary trial; I ask because I'm also getting a little tired.
    • I: Cameras in the courtroom doesn't automatically jeopardize a defendant's right to a fair trial
  46. Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978)
    • F: A record company wanted the right to copy the Nixon tapes for. The guy in this addescribes broadcasting from a variety of locations
    • I: USSC declared the press and public do not have a constitutional right to attend pretrial hearings
  47. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 1980
    • F: Judge Taylor closed the trial at the request
    • I: First amendment right, go ahead!
  48. Press Enterprise I v. Riverside County Superior Court (1984)
    • F: judged closed the voir dire examination of jurors in a rape-murder case
    • I: USSC delared the press had a right of access to a transcript of a preliminary
  49. Press Enterprise II v. Riverside County Superior Court (1986)
    • F: A magistrate excluded the press from a preliminary hearing
    • I: USSC claimed defendants must provide specific evidence that an open courtroom would present a "substatial probibility"
  50. Contempt
    • Civil - get someone to do something
    • Criminal - punishes disrespect for the court
  51. Bridges v. California, 1941
    I: punishment for criticism of pending court cases can occur only if thereis an extremely serious evil imminent.
  52. Pennekamp v. Florida, 1946
    • F: Miami Herald published a series of inaccurate editorials that accused judges of protecting crimnals more than the law-abiding public
    • I: editorials contain inaccurate information did not pose a clear and present danger to the administration of justice
  53. Craig v. Harney, 1947
    • F: Craig held in contempt for comments made about a judge outside the courtroom
    • I: USSC ruled contempt powers should not be used to punish the media
  54. Dickinson v. US, 1973
    • F: 2 reporters violated a judge's order not to publish testimony in a murder conspiracy case in Baton Rouge, LA
    • I: Injunction must be obeyed, regardless of the ultimate validity of the court order