Thesis on Why Is First Amendment Important

For a while, it has been a debate that cameras should be allowed in courtrooms because reporters and journalists have a First Amendment right to cover the news. However, other people, including judges of courtrooms believe that because of cameras in the courtroom, some trials may seem unfair. Although it may be against First Amendment rights, specifically the Freedom of the Press, I would have to support those who believe that cameras should not be allowed in the courtroom.

Before talking about the background of cameras in the courtroom and both the opposing and supporting sides of cameras in the courtroom, I want to talk about the First Amendment, specifically the Freedom of Press, and the Sixth Amendment. The First Amendment, in my own words, is our freedom of speech. The First Amendment could be split into five different parts, including speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion. The First Amendment is pretty much the reason why journalists and reporters for the news media are able to gather most news from many different sources, because of their freedom of the press. The Sixth Amendment is the right to a fair and public trial. This means that defendants will get a trial that is fair to them and not tilted in anyone’s favor. When these two Amendments come together, I feel a clash between the Freedom of the Press and a fair trial, where the press has the freedom to get anything for the news. When it comes to covering a trial for the news, I feel the reporter or journalist could show bias in their coverage of the trial, making those who view the covering on TV or in the newspaper lean to that same side the reporter or journalist, leading to an unfair trial.

A website for the United States Courts has an article on their website detailing the history of cameras within the courtroom, simply titled “History of Cameras in Courts.” They talk about an extensive history of cameras being present in courtrooms from 1946 to 2016. It all started with a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, also known as Rule 53. “Rule 53 states: ‘except as otherwise provided by a statute of these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings.’” (www.uscourts.gov) this meant that the media was not allowed to take photographs, and even broadcast when a judicial proceeding was taking place. In a Judicial Conference in September 1990, they came up with a policy that made it so a judge could permit media to televise, broadcast, and take photos of the courts, but only for special purposes. “A judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only: for the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings, for security purposes, for other purposes of judicial administration, or in accordance with pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States.” (www.uscourts.gov) The Judicial Conference would also hold pilot programs, experimenting with how cameras would affect courtrooms, specifically district courts. One pilot project would last 3 years and would be held in 1991, and the other in 2010. In the end, the Judicial Conference had a session around the 15th of March 2016, where it had come up with the latest set of rules the media is supposed to follow, which are very similar to the guidelines that the Judicial Conference had made back in September 1990. “A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom, and in adjacent areas during the investigative, neutralization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A Judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only: For the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings, for security purposes, for other purposes of judicial administration, for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments, or in accordance with pilot programs approved by the judicial conference.” (www.uscourts.gov)

Ruth Ann Strickland, author of an article titled “Cameras In the Courtroom,” goes over the history of cameras and journalists in the courtroom. “Placing cameras in the courtroom has historically stirred controversy. Opponents and proponents have invoked First Amendment provisions guaranteeing the public’s right to public information, the Sixth Amendment’s right to a fair and public trial, and the 14th Amendment’s due process protection.” (Ruth Ann Strickland) Ruth Ann Strickland believes that cameras in the courtroom have created a divide between people, and how some people believe that having cameras in the court could be good, and how having cameras could be bad. Ruth uses one court case as an example of how disruptive the media could be when it comes to a court trial. She uses the Hauptmann v. State trial as an example of their disruptiveness towards the court. Ruth Ann Strickland gives a side to both opponents and supporters of the topic of cameras in the courtroom. On the opposing side, she explains that cameras distract people, including the witnesses, which could make the judge feel off about them, leading to an unfair trial. On the supporting side, she explains that broadcasters don’t believe recording with today’s technology in the courtroom isn’t disruptive to participants in the trial. “They claim that under the watchful eyes of thousands of viewers, the judge, attorneys, and jurors are more likely to pay careful attention to the facts of a case, and be on their best behavior, helping to ensure fairer trials.” (Ruth Ann Strickland)

There are those who do support and those who don’t support the idea that cameras should be used in the courtroom. In a journal article titled, “AT ISSUE: Cameras in the Courtroom,” the authors have two different opposing views. The first author of the article, Floyd Abrams, believes that cameras should be used in the courtroom. “A single silent courtroom camera serves as an antidote to such behavior by truthfully showing the public how attorneys and judges actually behave.” (Floyd Abrams) I feel that Floyd Abrams motivates his point through how the jury and the attorneys act throughout the case. He feels that people should get to know what really happens during a court case, whether a judge allows for a camera in their court or not. Floyd does know that not all court cases would allow for a camera to be present. “Certainly high-profile cases present special problems. Juries are difficult to pick; sequestration is sometimes thought necessary. These are the inherent problems of notorious cases, not of live television coverage of those cases.” (Floyd Abrams) While he understands that more special cases are harder to be televised, I feel he is blaming the case in particular, instead of televised cameras that may be recording that case. The second author of the article, Wendy Kaminer, opposes the idea that cameras should belong in a courtroom. “If television executives are given general access to the nation’s courts, what proceedings will they choose to cover? What public purpose will be served? High-profile cases that can be most profitably televised, appealing to the most advertisers, will enjoy the attention.” (Wendy Kaminer) I believe that Wendy is trying to say that if television executives did have the right and permission to cover court cases, those court cases could be easily monetized, without care for what is actually happening in that court at the time. Wendy also adds that having a camera within the courtroom makes it a participant, changing how people act. We have already heard something similar to this within Ruth Ann Strickland’s article, with the opposing side’s argument. “If excessive publicity does little to inform public debate, does it facilitate a fair trial process? Not likely. The camera becomes a participant in the trial, not merely an observer of it. Cameras change the behavior of the people they record.” (Wendy Kaminer)

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Al Tompkins, an author from Poynter, wrote an article titled “A Case for Cameras in the Courtroom,” which talks about his experience with cameras being present in the courtroom, and how the court handled them. He talks about how journalists first got cameras prohibited from being used in court. “Ironically, we as journalists dug our own hole on this issue. The restrictions go back to a landmark trial in 1965, the case of Billie Sol Estes v. Texas. Journalists and photographers covering that trial acted so outrageously that the Supreme Court slammed the door on cameras in the courts.” (Al Tompkins) Tompkins explains that because of appeals from news organizations to the Supreme Court, and because of the technology of cameras becoming less burdensome in courtrooms, courts started to trust journalists again. “It took 15 years of appeals from news organizations from the Supreme Court to hear the matter again. In 1981, when cameras got quieter and needed no extra lights, the high court ruled that just having a camera in a courtroom is not, in itself, unconstitutional.” (Al Tompkins) He explains that most courts allow for camera coverage of trials, but some federal courts and the supreme court still don’t allow for cameras to be present. However, Tompkins came up with the thought that cameras could be possible in the Supreme Court. “If the Supreme Court is to open its doors to cameras, it has to be convinced that journalists will behave themselves and act professionally, recognizing the serious business of justice takes precedence over ‘good TV.’” (Al Tompkins) Although Tompkins talks about the history of the situation, I feel that Al Tompkins sides with the supporting side, because he looks at the positives of what happened when it came to cameras beginning to get allowed again. Towards the end, he also encourages journalists and news organizations to take action, by saying, “They should educate judges, lawmakers, and attorneys about how cameras work … after covering a hearing or trial, they should solicit and be responsive to concerns from judges and lawyers involved in proceedings” (Al Tompkins) and saying, “When a judge does grant permission for camera and audio coverage, journalists should strictly follow the rules of the court.” (Al Tompkins)

The Freedom of Press may protect journalists and reporters from gathering the news and reporting the truth. But is there a time when the Freedom of the Press conflicts with another Amendment? The Sheppard V Maxwell case was what I feel is a prime example of the Freedom of the Press conflicting with the Sixth Amendment, which is the right to a fair and public trial. Albert B. Lawrence, author of an article titled “A Murder that Mattered: Sam Sheppard, the Supreme Court, and Free Press/Fair Trial,” summarizes what happened during the Sam Sheppard court case, and talks about some of the challenges when it came to Free Press and Fair Trial. “Soon, it became a national story, and ‘men and women all over the United States were saying the same thing: ‘Sheppard did it himself!’ – a judgment based largely upon information disseminated by Ohio newspapers, television reports, and radio broadcasts,’ according to one chronicler of the case.” (Albert B. Lawrence) The article continues, talking about what a judge should do to make the trial private, and closed to journalists, by closing a pretrial hearing and ignoring news reports concerning the trial, and what needs to be done in order for a change of venue to take place. In the end, Sam Sheppard was able to be tried for a second time, without interruption of the news media. “After the Supreme Court’s decision, Sam Sheppard was tried a second time and acquitted … All photographers were ordered to stay outside the Cuyahoga County Courthouse. The reporters who were privileged to cover the trial officially were barred from securing information other than what they could gather in the small courtroom.” (Albert. B Lawrence)

My choice of supporting those who believe that cameras should not be allowed in any courtroom, including the Supreme Court concerns the Freedom of the Press conflicting with the Sixth Amendment, which is the right to a fair and public trial. I feel that the news should have a greater right of access to information, however not so much of this access to information would make a court case look one-sided. With court cases like Sheppard V. Maxwell, having so many members of media within the court just to gather information for the public, I feel they would hype up the trial, leading to participants becoming more on edge, even including the judge. I feel that with the media hyping these trials, and twisting the story to gain people’s attention, people become inclined to take a side with these trials and expect justice to be ruled, even if the suspect in court could be innocent. “in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), the Court ordered a retrial of Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard, whose trial for the murder of his wife was also marred by extensive media coverage.” (Ruth Ann Strickland) It is at this point I feel a trial becomes one-sided, and unfair, leading to an issue with the Sixth Amendment, which is the right to a fair and public trial. The Sixth Amendment, I feel is supposed to protect those in court, and prevent outside sources, like the media, from tarnishing the reputation of those taking part in a trial. I believe that the only way for these two Amendments to work together, specifically the Freedom of the Press and the right to a fair trial parts of these Amendments, is for reporters and journalists to remain neutral through any trial, gathering general information about the trial, and showing no bias for a side throughout the trial.

What about the ethics of this case? Is it ethical for judges to remove reporters and journalists from the court whenever possible, and for cameras to not be allowed in the courtroom? I believe that it is both ethical and unethical for a judge to keep reporters and journalists out of their courtroom. For the unethical side, I believe that Journalists and reporters do have a right to report the news. From the Media Law and Ethics textbook, the Journalist Code of Ethics implies for reporters and journalists “Seek the truth and report it.” (Breslin, 43) This means that the job of a journalist is ethical, in which that they must report the truth to the public, who is unaware of the issue at hand. This means they should be able to get access to records in a courtroom. This is where my ethical side comes in. I feel that it is ethical for a judge to revoke recording permissions from reporters and journalists for a trial because you have to think, is what’s being presented in the court set in stone? In other words, is the truth being conveyed throughout the trial? Another part of the Journalist Code of Ethics, from the Media Law and Ethics textbook, is “‘Minimize harm,’ especially when dealing with children and crime victims.” (Breslin, 43) As seen in the Sheppard case, reporters and journalists in the media could show bias and could cause harm to the victim in that trial if they choose not to side with the crime victim. Another reason is a disruption or distraction of a court trial. How will the media act when it comes to an influential or popular trial? On one hand, you have the media behaving disruptively and distractingly, which will lead to participants in the trial taking notice and will become distracted themselves. On the other hand, you have the media behaving properly, leading to a natural and focused trial.

Although it may be against First Amendment rights, specifically the Freedom of the Press, I would have to support those who believe that cameras should not be allowed in the courtroom. For a while, it has been a debate that cameras should be allowed in courtrooms because reporters and journalists have a First Amendment right to cover the news. Throughout this paper, we have seen both sides of the spectrum for this situation, involving those who support camera coverage in the court, and those who oppose it. We also see a brief history of the situation, and where and when it could and couldn’t be allowed.

Works Cited:

1. Lawrence, Albert B. “A Murder That Mattered: Sam Sheppard, the Supreme Court, and Free Press/Fair Trial.” Journal of Supreme Court History, vol. 43, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 160–172. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/jsch.12177.
2. ABRAMS, FLOYD, and WENDY KAMINER. “AT ISSUE: Cameras in the Courtroom.” ABA Journal, vol. 81, no. 9, 1995, pp. 36–37. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27837281. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020.
3. Tompkins, Al. “A Case for Cameras in the Courtroom.” Poynter, 21 Aug. 2002, www.poynter.org/archive/2002/a-case-for-cameras-in-the-courtroom/.
4. Strickland, Ruth Ann. Cameras in the Courtroom, 2009, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/989/cameras-in-the-courtroom.
5. “History of Cameras in Courts.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras-courts.
6. Breslin, Jack. Media Law and Ethics. Second Revised Preliminary Edition ed., Cognella, Inc., 2014. Accessed 8 Nov. 2020.