Gag the Press.
This article deals with comments on why transcripts in the Kobe Bryant rape case that were mistakenly electronically mailed to news organizations were kept sealed in the first place. In September 2003, a document disclosing the name of Bryant's accuser was posted on the Internet. Then in June 2004,...
| Publicado en: | American Journalism Review Vol. 26; no. 5; pp. 106 - 107 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
University of Maryland
Oct/Nov2004
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=14680813&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 14680813 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 10678654 WJR jtl: American Journalism Review issn: 10678654 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct/Nov2004 vid: 26 iid: 5 pid: 263 pub: University of Maryland artinfo: ui: 14680813 ppf: 106 ppct: 1 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 415KB tig: atl: Gag the Press. aug: au: Kirtley, Jane affil: Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law, University of Minnesota's School of Journalism and Mass Communication su: Trial transcripts Law reports, digests, etc. Law reporting Crime & the press Free press & fair trial Legal journalism Journalistic reporting Trials (Rape) Bryant, Kobe, 1978-2020 United States sug: subj: United States Trial transcripts Law reports, digests, etc. Law reporting Crime & the press Free press & fair trial Legal journalism Journalistic reporting Trials (Rape) Bryant, Kobe, 1978-2020 ab: This article deals with comments on why transcripts in the Kobe Bryant rape case that were mistakenly electronically mailed to news organizations were kept sealed in the first place. In September 2003, a document disclosing the name of Bryant's accuser was posted on the Internet. Then in June 2004, transcripts of pretrial hearings held in secret were accidentally electronically mailed to seven media organizations. Within a few hours, those same news outlets received an order from the court directing them to delete and destroy any copies and not reveal any contents thereof, or be subject to contempt of court. Most journalists and media lawyers would argue that it does. But although the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet upheld a prior restraint on the news media, the high court has never ruled out the possibility that it might, if the case were compelling enough. And the federal circuits have allegedly split on whether a news organization may violate even a transparently unconstitutional gag order with impunity, or whether it must wait for an appellate court to strike it down or face contempt. Rather than take a chance, the media asked the Colorado Supreme Court to set aside Colorado District Court Judge W. Terry Ruckriegle's order. And less than a month later, lightning quick by judicial standards, an eternity in the current 24/7 news environment, the state's highest court, in a split decision, declined to do so. pubtype: Periodical doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of American Journalism Review is the property of University of Maryland and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: American Journalism Review holder: University of Maryland dt: @attributes: year: 2004 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|