First Amendment Press Freedom: Landmark and Daily Mail Cases

Introduction: Press Freedom and Its Responsibilities

The freedoms of expression afforded to Americans through the First Amendment of the United States Constitution come with burdens of proof — of validity, lawfulness in acquisition, and whether the information presents a "clear and present danger" upon exposure. In many ways, the First Amendment affords news publications great opportunities to shed light on proceedings, processes, and events without fear of recrimination. It allows journalists access to important, life-altering information that many other countries can hide from their publics. But with this freedom, daily newspapers — perhaps more than any other form of publication in the United States — are required to exercise restraint over certain kinds of information. For example, news organizations do not publish the names of rape victims or youthful offenders of minor crimes because of the damage such information inflicts upon the innocent and upon the futures of underage, naive accused criminals.

In lawsuits filed against two newspapers in the late 1970s, however, complainants argued that certain news publications went too far with the freedoms afforded to them by the First Amendment and wrongly published the names of accused individuals — one a judge facing disciplinary action and the other a 14-year-old accused by several eyewitnesses of murdering a classmate. Both cases were argued before the United States Supreme Court.

Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978)

In Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978), the Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper owned by Landmark Communications, published an article on October 4, 1975 about a judge who was under investigation by a panel charged with determining the fitness of sitting judges. The judge in question, H. Warrington Sharp, sat on the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

All states require some form of confidentiality in disciplinary measures for judges to prevent such information from being used to influence a judge's decisions. Virginia and Hawaii are the only states that impose criminal penalties for such disclosures. According to the full text of the case, Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), in a bench trial held two months after publication, the newspaper was found guilty of a misdemeanor and fined $500 plus the cost of prosecution. Joseph W. Dunn Jr., managing editor of the Virginian-Pilot, was the only witness at trial. He stated that the paper decided to print the information about the judge because it was a matter that deserved public attention. Dunn acknowledged that it was a misdemeanor for anyone directly involved with the commission to disclose information about its proceedings, but argued that he did not believe the law held newspapers liable for gathering the information legally and reporting it (Landmark, 435 U.S. 829 (1978)).

Landmark appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld the conviction by a vote of 6–1, stating that the newspaper had damaged the judge's reputation, undermined public confidence in the judicial system, and made the judge vulnerable to attacks. In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Landmark Communications argued that the statute applied only to those directly involved with the commission and its proceedings, not to third parties such as newspapers. The paper further argued that it received the information legally, that the information was true, and that the newspaper fulfilled its constitutional duty as a public watchdog by reporting it. In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the paper was "a third party who was a stranger to the commission's proceedings" and was therefore justified in publishing true information it had received legally; the newspaper was not among the guilty parties (Landmark, 435 U.S. 829 (1978)).

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979)

The case of Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979), was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court after two West Virginia newspapers — the Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette — published the name of a 14-year-old boy who was arrested for allegedly shooting and killing another boy. The suspect's name was broadcast over police band radio frequencies and reported to the papers by eyewitnesses. The papers were charged with violating a state statute that made it a crime for a newspaper to publish the name of a person charged as a juvenile offender without permission from the juvenile court. This statute was designed to protect youthful offenders from social ostracism, which would further diminish their chances of rehabilitation.

The case was brought to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which granted a writ of prohibition against the petitioners — the prosecuting attorney and the Circuit Judges of Kanawha County — holding that the statute upon which the indictment was based violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979)).

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 upheld the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals' decision, stating that the newspapers were within their constitutional rights to publish truthful information gathered legally. Notably, the information was effectively supplied by local government when the juvenile's name was broadcast over police band radio frequencies.

Conclusion: Journalistic Duty in the Digital Age

One important aspect to remember about these cases is that they were argued and decided during an era when the vast majority of news was published or broadcast only after being scrutinized by several trained journalists, thus better ensuring objectivity. Today, with an increasingly large portion of news being published on the Internet without editorial oversight or broadcast on news channels that may carry unstated biases, news and media professionals must remember that it is more important than ever to be honest and objective. Without such precautions, the press risks not only legal consequences but, worse, a loss of trust from the public it is meant to serve.

Works Cited

Abrams, Floyd. Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment. New York: Penguin Books, 2005. Print.

Kilkenny, Ryan. "Invasion of Privacy for the Greater Good: Why Bartnicki v. Vopper Disserves the Right of Privacy and the First Amendment." Ohio State Law Journal Vol. 64 (2003): 999–1039.

Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978).

Smith v. The Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979).

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. Decided June 26, 1979; 443 U.S. 97. ACLU ProCon.Org, 9 March 2011.