Branzburg vs. Hayes Essay -- essays research papers fc

The case of Branzburg vs. Hayes all began in 1969, when a Louisville Kentucky reporter by the name of Branzburg wrote a story, in the Courier-Journal, which described how two local residences made hashish marijuana. The article went into great detail and revealed many facts, including the amount of money the two made on selling the hashish to the public. The article also featured pictures of the two individual’s hands working with a plant like substance and was identified for readers as hashish in the caption under the picture. Branzburg was in agreement with the drug dealers and promised them he would not reveal their real names or identities in the article.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   After the article was published, Branzburg was immediately subpoenaed by the Jefferson County Court system. The court demeaned that he name the two individuals featured in the article, but he stood strong and refused to give up their names like he had promised them. Branzburg argued that the Kentucky Privilege Statute passed in 1962 protected him from having to give up the names.(1) He also argued that the First Amendment and Kentucky constitution, (Sections 1,2, and 8) protected his right not to disclose the information of the two individual’s identities.(2) However, the Kentucky courts fought back arguing that the Kentucky Privilege Statute didn’t allow a reporter to refuse to testify about things they saw, or not disclose the names of people they were in contact with. Branzburg then took his case to the Kentucky appeals court, which ruled against him once again. He continued to fight the good fight for what he thought was true and right; the case finally ended up at the Supreme Court.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Branzburg’s decision not to disclose the information the court sought was due to the belief that his integrity and effectiveness as a reporter would be tarnished if he named names. Branzburg placed a high value on the confidentiality between him and the subjects he was investigating and reporting on. He felt that if he had released the two names in the article he published that subjects in the future would be unwilling to disclose information that was vital in writing the kind of stories he so desired. If people from the local area saw that Branzburg couldn’t keep his subjects identities anonymous as they had requested, than others in the future would be ve... ...t the law would eventually find him and force him to disclose the individual’s identities. I think his motives behind writing the story were to produce a thought provoking article that revealed the under ground operation of the drug manufacturing community. He wanted to shakes things up and report on something that was controversial and intriguing, however in the end he became a rat. Works Cited 1.) Kentucky Reporters’ Privilege Statute, KY. REV. STAT. SEC. 421.100 (1962), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665 Section I, paragraph 2. 2.) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665 Section I, paragraph 2. 3.) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665 Section 2 Paragraph 1 4.) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665 Section 2, paragraph 2 5.) In re Pappas - 408 U.S. 665 (1972) - Docket Number: 70-94 http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/870/ 6.) U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment - Rights of Person http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/