First Amendment Laws and the Press

¶ … individual making the leak would likely be protected by First Amendment laws given that the statement was made by the sheriff regarding the investigation 'on the record,' as is noted in the report. If a statement was made about a public figure who has less of an expectation of privacy under current legal interpretations, regardless if the leaker was a member of the press or a private individual, the statement would be thoroughly protected. "Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression [for all individuals]. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general" ("First Amendment," 2014). All citizens have the right to free speech about public individuals (such as baseball players), and in this case the speech was not libelous. Public figures are deemed to have significantly diminished expectations of privacy: "[p]ersons who have placed themselves in the public light, e.g., through politics, or voluntarily participate in the public arena have a significantly diminished privacy interest than others" ("Diminished privacy rights," 2014).

However, if the statement was made about a private individual (the person with ties to the crime family who is not a public figure), the standard is much higher. "Defamation law tries to balance competing interests: On the one hand, people should not ruin others' lives by telling lies about them; but on the other hand, people should be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake" ("Defamation law made simple," 2014). To show defamation, the individual must prove the statement was "published; false; injurious;" and "unprivileged" [not protected by the First Amendment] ("Defamation law made simple," 2014). This would mean that even Snider as a private figure would have to show that any allegations about his betting habits are obviously false, not simply published and injurious to him, which he might have considerable difficulty in doing.

Section B

A written report from the league security staff sent to league President Peter Uberalle was apparently in the form of an internal memo that was 'leaked.' In this instance, the individualwould also be protected and not forced to reveal the source of the leak. Of course, within the department, if the leaker was found, he or she could be punished by the loss of his job but there are no legal sanctions that have apparently been broken in the scenario described. State shield laws usually use a balancing test of rights regarding revealing information: "if the information is relevant to the case at hand, if the information can't be acquired through alternative means and if the public has a compelling interest in the requested information," none of which seems clear in the scenario reported given it merely referred to an apparent association, not to a specific criminal act (Stearns & Palmer 2013). Although shield laws are usually in reference to the press, they have also been used to protect a wide variety of persons, including bloggers and other forms of private free speech expression.