A VICTORY NOT TO CROW ABOUT

Page 1

1. 800. 973.1177

COURT REPORTER

A VICTORY NOT TO CROW ABOUT [by James Kilpatrick] We of the press recently won a victory in the courts of California. I’m sorry we won. As a partisan of a press that is both free and responsible, I express regret. This was a case we should have lost.

The underlying facts are not in dispute.

is no indication that the First Amendment

publicity.” Nevertheless, the court sent the

Sixteen years ago a salesman in Southern

provides less protection to historians than to

TV station home free.

California was shot and killed. It transpired

those reporting current events.”

that the killing was murder for hire, set

Since the Cox Broadcasting case in 1975,

in motion by a prominent auto dealer. The

The California court relied chiefly upon the

the high court repeatedly has reaffirmed the

dealer subsequently was convicted of mas-

opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Cox

gist of its holding. In cases from Oklahoma,

terminding the plot. His assistant — call him

Broadcasting v. Cohn in 1975. The case

West Virginia, and most recently from Florida

James Jackson — was at first charged as a

involved the gang rape and murder of a 17-

in 1989, our right as reporters truthfully to

co-conspirator.

year-old in Georgia. At the time, Georgia law

report judicial proceedings has been upheld.

prohibited publication of the names of rape

The Florida case involved a one-paragraph

In 1992, when the case went to trial, Jackson

victims, but a reporter for Station WSB-TV

report of a rape in Jacksonville. The victim

pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of being

picked up the victim’s name from the indict-

sued the weekly Florida Star for disclos-

an accessory after the fact. He served a

ments. In a news broadcast, the reporter

ing her name. The newspaper won, 6-3, but

three-year prison term, with time off for good

identified the dead girl. Her father sued

Justice Thurgood Marshall observed point-

behavior. The San Bernardino Superior Court

for invasion of privacy. He won in the lower

edly that “our cases have carefully eschewed

granted him a certificate of rehabilitation.

courts but lost on the station’s appeal.

reaching the ultimate question, of whether

Then he vanished into civilian anonymity.

truthful publication may never be punished.” The high court defined the question: “Wheth-

Not for long. In 2001 a television company,

er the state may impose sanctions on the

The long and short of it is that we of the

Discovery Communications, produced a

accurate publication of the name of a rape

press have an unqualified right to publish

documentary about the 1988 plot. The show

victim obtained from public records — more

accurate and timely reports of judicial pro-

identified Jackson as a bit player. It included

specifically, from judicial records which are

ceedings. We also have a right to resurrect

a mug shot of him, taken at the time of his

maintained in connection with a public pros-

old cases, such as the 1988 murder for hire

arrest. He sued for invasion of his privacy.

ecution and which themselves are open to

in California. It may not be “news of the day,”

The producer responded that the Jackson

public inspection.” Said Justice Byron White:

but we can do it. The question in cases such

portion was based upon official records

“We are convinced that it may not do so.”

as the case of James Jackson is, Should we

of a public judicial proceeding. Images of

do it? Tell me. After a long life of rough and

Jackson, counsel contended, were therefore

Justice William O. Douglas sweepingly con-

“privileged” under a string of Supreme Court

curred. The state may not penalize truthful

precedents. Case dismissed.

publication of “news of the day.” Any other

(Readers are invited to send dated citations

rule “would inevitably induce self-censor-

of usage to Mr. Kilpatrick. His e-mail address

Last December the California Supreme

ship by the media, thereby inhibiting the

is kilpatjj@aol.com.)

Court unanimously affirmed. The crime of

rough and tumble discourse which the First

1988 may not have been “newsworthy” in

Amendment so clearly protects.”

2001, but this was of no consequence. And

tumble, I must be turning soft.

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

true, Jackson had lived “an obscure, lawful

Justice White was not so sure of that.

life and become a respected member of the

“Powerful arguments can be made that,

tributed electronically, in print or otherwise

community.” No matter. The press has an

however it may be defined, there is a zone of

without the written permission of uclick and

“absolute right” to report the contents of

privacy surrounding every individual, a zone

Universal Press Syndicate.

public records. The case had become history,

within which the state may protect him from

said Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, and “there

intrusion by the press, with all the attendant

PAGE 1

This feature may not be reproduced or dis-


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
A VICTORY NOT TO CROW ABOUT by LawCrossing - Issuu