Branzburg vs. Hayes Essay -- essays research papers fc

The case of Branzburg vs. Hayes all began in 1969, when a Louisville Kentucky reporter by the name of Branzburg wrote a story, in the Courier-Journal, which draw how cardinal local residences made hashish marijuana. The article went into great incident and revealed many facts, including the amount of money the two made on interchange the hashish to the public. The article alike featured pictures of the two individuals hands working with a plant like substance and was place for readers as hashish in the caption under the picture. Branzburg was in contract with the drug dealers and promised them he would non reveal their real names or identities in the article.After the article was published, Branzburg was immediately subpoenaed by the Jefferson County Court system. The beg demeaned that he name the two individuals featured in the article, but he stood strong and refused to give up their names like he had promised them. Branzburg argued that the Kentucky permit Statute passe d in 1962 protected him from having to give up the names.(1) He also argued that the First Am set asidement and Kentucky establishment, ( atoms 1,2, and 8) protected his right not to disclose the information of the two individuals identities.(2) However, the Kentucky courts fought back arguing that the Kentucky Privilege Statute didnt allow a reporter to refuse to testify about things they saw, or not disclose the names of people they were in contact with. Branzburg thus took his case to the Kentucky appeals court, which ruled against him once again. He continued to fight the well-grounded fight for what he thought was true and right the case last ended up at the Supreme Court.Branzburgs decision not to disclose the information the court sought was due to the belief that his lawfulness and effectiveness as a reporter would be tarnished if he named names. Branzburg place a high value on the confidentiality between him and the subjects he was analyze and reporting on. He felt th at if he had released the two names in the article he published that subjects in the future would be reluctant to disclose information that was vital in writing the kind of stories he so desired.If people from the local area saw that Branzburg couldnt go by his subjects identities anonymous as they had requested, than others in the future would be ve... ...t the law would in the end find him and force him to disclose the individuals identities. I approximate his motives behind writing the story were to produce a thought arouse article that revealed the under ground operation of the drug manufacturing community. He cute to shakes things up and report on something that was controversial and intriguing, however in the end he became a rat.Works Cited1.) Kentucky Reporters Privilege Statute, KY. REV. STAT. SEC. 421.100 (1962), http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665 contribution I, paragraph 2.2.) http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?co urt=us&vol=408&invol=665Section I, paragraph 2.3.) http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665Section 2 Paragraph 14.) http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665Section 2, paragraph 25.) In re Pappas - 408 U.S. 665 (1972) - Docket Number 70-94http//www.oyez.org/oyez/ resourcefulness/case/870/6.) U.S. Constitution Fifth AmendmentFifth Amendment - Rights of Personhttp//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/