Court Case Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

butterfly Case Paper - canvas ExampleThe second is the classic view of the laissez faire liberalism that government should have nonhing to do with the process of communication. And lastly, the unseasoned theory that the basic or paramount concern of an approach to the branch Amendment should make the pivotal pursuance that of the reader, the listener and the viewer (Blanchard, 1974, p. 409) In the similar result of Red Lion Broadcasting V. FCC, 395 US 367 (1969), the overbearing Court held that the Fairness Doctrine did not violate the First Amendment. According to jurist Black, the imposition of penalties to the broadcasters did not transgress the spirit of the First Amendment. The Fairness Doctrine states that broadcasters be given airtime to freely discuss matters which covers theme interest, to present the opposing views in the form of news segments, radio talk shows, public affairs shows or even editorials. The Fairness Doctrine which includes the personal attacks and t he politician editorializing ruled were all designed to provide a structure for dialogue (Blanchard, 1974, p. 410). It is undeniable that there are similarly evils in the press. There are infinite instances where in the broadcast media and the press is guilty of committing error and inaccurate reports. However, the media, even if guilty of misrepresentation, must also be protected, if freedom of the press are to have the breathing space that they need to survive (Blanchard, 1974, p. 414). In the case at bar, the Court ruled that mommy law violated the First Amendment. It relied on the precedent decision of Richmond Newspapers V. Virginia, 448 US 555 (1980), where the Court held the First Amendment covers the freedom to listen and to receive information and ideas. The Court also emphasized that the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly in public places, which include court houses. The Massachusetts court relied heavily on the Massachusetts statutes which excluded the g eneral public from trials involving sexual offenses of victims who are under the fester of 18 and ordered that the press and public be excluded from the courtroom during the trial of a defendant, who was faced with charges of pillage of three minor girls. Globe Newspaper Co. Although the right of access to criminal trials is not absolute, there are circumstances when the press and public is denied to access are limited. The State must show that denial of such(prenominal) right is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The First Amendment allows the right of access to criminal trials to ensure that the constitutionally protected discussion of governmental affairs is an sure one. The right of access to criminal trials in particular is properly afforded protection because such trials have historically been open to the press and public and because such right of access plays a particularly significant business office in the functioning of the judicial process and the government as a whole (Globe Newspaper Co.). Justice Brennan pointed out that the only justification to disallow media and the press from attending trial which concerns sex-offense of minors is to serve a compelling state interest. The Court found that no such interest was present in the case at bar. According to J. Brennan, although protecting the psychological, mental and