University of Virginia Library

Supreme Court Decision

That June the Supreme
Court shocked the press when
it handed down its 5-4 decision
in the Branzburg case. "The
First Amendment does not
relieve a newspaper reporter of
the obligation to that all
citizens have to respond to a
grand jury subpoena, and
answer questions relevant to a
criminal investigation..." the
court ruled.

The decision was significant
because it said the reporter had
been concealing the criminal
conduct of his source, in this
case the Black Panthers, and
evidence he had gathered. It
placed a Grand Jury
investigation over the rights of
newsmen to keep their sources
confidential.

Not only the press, but the
entire news media, was up in
arms. Some felt the ruling,
turning on a single vote, was
only possible because of the
three essentially anti-press
justices appointed by President
Nixon.

Bitterness against the
administration turned into
open hostility. The very
foundation of a free press had
been knocked loose. If a
reporter could not guarantee a
news source any degree of
confidentiality, how could the

press assure a free flow of
information to the public?
Now it seemed that a reporter
with knowledge of potentially
illegal activities was as
vulnerable as those committing
the alleged crime.

With the beginning of the
93rd Congress approximately
two dozen bills protecting
newsmen were introduced. The
scope of the bills ranged
between full immunity from
government investigation to
qualified exemption. Some
covered only federal
proceedings. Others
encompassed state
investigations.

Finally in February Ervin
reconvened his subcommittee
to examine the problem in
the hopes of drawing a single
bill which incorporates the
better points of those already
introduced.

In his opening remarks the
Senator delineated the
investigation's purpose:
"Specifically we will consider
the question of whether the
government should be
permitted to compel the press
to reveal the identity of
confidential sources of
information or the content of
unpublished information."

* * *

Last Thursday Ervin
introduced his bill onto the
Senate floor: "This bill
represents my third attempt at
drafting legislation which will
accomodate both the interest
of society in law enforcement
and the interest in preserving a
free flow of information to the
public."

The bill, backed by men
such as William Fulbright
(D - Ark.), Mike Mansfield,
(D – Mont.), and William
Proxmire (D-Wis.), culminates
a four week long hearing
during which people testified
passionately for and against the
need for such a bill, and over
what form it should take.

Most felt that to qualify the
First Amendment in any way
was a grave mistake, but
because of the existing
circumstances a law
guaranteeing rights under the
amendment was essential

CBS's Stanton, who at the
first hearing felt no legislation
was necessary, regretted, "that
since then there have been
repeated erosion of both the
purpose and spirit of the First
Amendment rights," and that
"no one...can view these
invasions of its freedom with
anything but the gravest
alarm."