Bartnicki v. Vopper

During the 2000-2001 Supreme Court term, the Court took on the Bartnicki v. Vopper case. In this case the defendant was held liable for broadcasting a conversation between and labor official and people apart of a union about the teachers’ that were on strike. They argued that the conversation, which was taped, was illegally obtained and violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In the end the Court said that the station in which the conversation aired was not liable because the station itself did not illegally obtain the conversation. This shows that even if a third party disobeyed the law, the media defendant are not liable for that action.

In Justice William Rehnquist dissent he notes that this would have a chilling effect. "The Court holds that all of these statutes violate the First Amendment the illegally intercepted conversation touches upon a matter of "public concern," an amorphous concept that the Court does not even attempt to define. But the Court's decision diminishes, rather than enhances, the purposes of the First Amendment, thereby chilling the speech of the millions of Americans who rely upon electronic technology to communicate each day."

I find this case very interesting in the fact that is something that I feel like is extremely relevant. In todays’ society there is a never ending steam of online information. We see this everyday with such trivial things like the celebrity leaked photo scandal, and even things extreme as the ISIS videos. There is always a third party in which the information is being shared, however, I agree that the third party should not be held responsible for how that information was sent to them. To take the issue to almost an extreme level we can look at the videos that media has shown us regarding ISIS. There was a tragic video that was posted showing an American citizen being beheaded. This video was plastered everywhere online and talked about on even news outlet. While the acts in the video were not only illegal, but also extremely graphic, the media that published this video cannot be held accountable for what was done. While, this again, is an extreme to the situation it is something that we can see in our daily lives. To take it to less of an extreme, we can also draw connections to the recent Donald Starling situation. While what he said was secretly recorded, he has no case in trying to prosecute the media that aired the tape. What Justice William says in his dissent could not be truer. If we are to say that the third party is liable, than no one will feel safe to say what they want.

 

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/supreme-court-cases

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-cohen/restrictions-on-time-place-or-matter-of-expression/bartnicki-v-vopper/

Whistleblowing: A Story of Death and Neglect

            It has been exhibited many times that both our government and our businesses need whistleblowers in order to address misconduct or institutional problems. A whistleblower is defined someone who reveals institutional problems of an organization, specifically an organization the individual is a part of. Whistleblowing laws have been set up to protect individuals from the organization’s retaliation.

            However, there are some major difficulties. From state to state there are different protections in place for whistleblowers, however they vary, most making it difficult to gain whistleblower status, maintain status, and the laws do not always have the broadest reach. In the resent VA scandal to surface in the media, the former chief of psychiatry at the local St. Louis VA health system was demoted multiple times after filing complaints against the system.

            This chief of psychiatry’s story goes against the fabric of what our country preaches: we take care of the ones who are willing to die for our freedom. And yet, on this topic alone, there have been continuous reports of neglect and misconduct within the VA for almost sixty years. This article states that the VA inspector general has issued 18 reports that identified problems with the system since 2005. In 1988, President Bush set a committee to clean up the program and swore in Anthony Principi as secretary of the VA. Principi was later involved in a long-term contract that overcharged the VA $6 million dollars.

            There are countless other examples of this problem however, one of the most disturbing issues is not necessarily that this neglect has most likely lead to the deaths of U.S. veterans, but the manner in which the organizations conduct themselves even after they are criticized. In the St. Louis Psychiatrist’s case, he was demoted. And when the media does expose wrong doing, the administrations amputate themselves from the directly guilty parties and claim they had no prior knowledge at all to the poor conditions or conduct of the programs.

            The U.S. government agreed to allocate over 17 billion dollars to the program to fix the problems, yet one must wonder if a lack o funds is the root of this issue.

            As stated before, this conduct has been rampant for more than sixty years, and yet it has seen little coverage and momentum despite the nation’s participation in more than five wars since that time. If we cannot tolerate criticism and use it to make our country better, then we will inevitably be left in ruin, for those who do not change, mutate, and evolve eventually die.

McCullen v. Coakley

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court presided over the case McCullen v. Coakley. The case concerned a Massachusetts statute, the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act from 2000 and 2007, which “makes it a crime to stand on a public road or sidewalk within thirty-five feet of a reproductive health care facility violates the First Amendment” (SCOTUSblog). Eleanor McCullen and other activists, the petitioners, engage in what is considered “sidewalk counseling,” which includes suggesting alternatives in a calm manner to women entering the clinic in order to refrain from an abortion.

In 2008, the petitioners sued Martha Coakley, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusets, on grounds of the statute being violative of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They first sued in District Court, which ruled in favor of Coakley. The petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the First District, which upheld “the 2007 version as a reasonable “time, place, and manner” regulation under the test set forth in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781 (1989)” (McCullen v. Coakley). Subsequently, they appealed to the Supreme Court with a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court decided to grant certiorari and review the case during the 2014 term.

On June 26^th, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Massachusetts statute with its buffer zones is indeed violative of the First Amendment and that it thus infringes on the right to free speech, since the petitioners’ attempts would be thwarted (McCullen v. Coakley). Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, in which many issues, such as content and strict scrutiny are considered. The majority opinion itself holds that the buffer zones restrict the petitioners’ free speech as well as the possibility of practicing compassionate sidewalk counseling (since the distance prevents them from “personal, caring, and consensual conversations”): thus, “the buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests” (McCullen v. Coakley). Therefore, the Commonwealth has insufficiently studied approaches that would be less restrictive and would not exclude “individuals from areas historically open for speech and debate” (McCullen v. Coakley). Thus, it violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeals’ ruling and the case is remanded. 

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concur by arguing that the “obvious purpose of the challenged portion of the Massachusetts Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act is to “protect” prospective clients of abortion clinics from having to hear abortion-opposing speech on public streets and sidewalks,” which they perceive to be unconstitutional (McCullen v. Coakley). The majority and this opinion differ on the topic of content-neutrality as well. Justice Alito concurs as well in another separate opinion while arguing that the act discriminates based on viewpoint.

  

Relevant to this case is a precedent named Hill v. Colorado from 2000, which upheld anti-abortion buffer zones, since that law was narrowly tailored. As Kevin Russell asks, could the reasons explicated for overturning the Massachusetts statute also serve to deem Colorado’s buffer zones unconstitutional? The McCullen decision thus evokes new questions and issues which could severely impact other statutes and legislation.  In fact, three concurring Justices advocated the overturn of Hill (McCullen; Denniston). 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court did uphold free speech in the McCullen v. Coakley case with a 9-0 vote, which is a  victory for freedom of speech in the United States. While I advocate unlimited freedom of speech and thus fully agree with this decision and deem it justified, I do wish more people would respect each others’ privacy and sorrow.Even though the petitioners do not assault the women they approach, are caring in their conversations, and respect the final choice the approached woman makes, which I all appreciate, I do find it saddening that fragile women, who are in pain over the decision they are about to make and may be traumatized by that same decision, have to defend themselves and justify their choices on such a tragic and difficult day. On the other hand, however, precisely that, the freedom to be hurtful, is essential to the exercise of freedom of speech, which, in my view, should always be preserved, since it should be a right available to all people, fosters debate and critical thinking, and may lead to change for the better in many instances.

  

Steven Shapiro, affiliated with the American Civil, clearly reflects the dilemma I have found myself entangled in as well: “This is a hard case and the majority opinion reflects the difficulty and importance of balancing two constitutional rights: the right of women to enter and leave abortion clinics free from the harassment, intimidation, and violence they have too often suffered in the past; and the right of peaceful protestors to express their opposition to abortion on the public streets outside abortion clinics.”

 

A photo of petitioner Eleanor McCullen (Loeb). 

Works Cited

Denniston, Lyle. “Opinion Analysis: A Broader Right to Oppose Abortion.” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court of the     United States Blog. Bloomberg Law, 26 June 2014. Web. 16 September 2014.

Loeb, Saul. Eleanor McCullen, who challenged Massachusetts' 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics,  stands outside the Supreme Court building on Jan. 15, 2014. AFP. Photograph. 17 September 2014.

“McCullen v. Coakley.” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Bloomberg Law, n.d. Web. 16       September 2014.

McCullen v. Coakley. 573 U.S. Supreme Court of the United States. 2014. Cornell University Law School Legal      Information Institute. Web. 15 September 2014.

Shapiro, Steven R. “ACLU Reacts to Supreme Court Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Ruling.” American Civil Liberties Union. 26 June 2014. Web. 16 September 2014.

Russell, Kevin. “What is Left of Hill v. Colorado?” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Bloomberg Law, 26 June 2014. Web. 16 September 2014.