In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes this Court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold...
Something wrong with the clip?
Quote
Alan Burnside:
[In front of the Supreme Court]
In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes this Court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the Government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a 5-4 decision, close. In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, power of Government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Mrs. Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the Government; she could've abandoned her promise of confidentiality; she could've simply gone home to her family. But to do so, would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again. And then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a President has covered up crimes or if an army officer has condoned torture? We as a nation will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of Government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shudder at the thought. Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries; that's for countries who fear their citizens - not countries that cherish and protect them. Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.
Transcript
00:00:01.000 --> 00:00:04.367
In 1972 in Branzburg v Hayes
00:00:04.437 --> 00:00:08.931
this court ruled against the right of reporters
00:00:09.991 --> 00:00:12.671
to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury
00:00:13.346 --> 00:00:17.305
and it gave the power to the government
00:00:17.417 --> 00:00:20.215
to imprison those reporters who did
00:00:20.887 --> 00:00:23.583
It was a five four decision Close
00:00:25.591 --> 00:00:28.651
In his dissent in Branzburg Justice Stewart said
00:00:28.728 --> 00:00:31.424
As the years pass
00:00:31.497 --> 00:00:35.058
the power of government becomes more and more pervasive
Clip duration: 36 seconds
Views: 162
Timestamp in movie: 01h 26m 05s
Uploaded: 26 March, 2022
Genres: drama, thriller
Summary: When reporter Rachel Armstrong writes a story that reveals the identity of a covert CIA operative, the government demands that Rachel reveal her source. She defies the special prosecutor and is thrown in jail. Meanwhile, her attorney, Albert Burnside argues her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Comments
Actors
00:19 A man leaves his family to go to jail to protect a principle
00:06 We just feel like this is not the best time for you to be...
00:06 I wish you would let me know who your source is on this
00:08 That's enough But you're not supposed to tattle
00:05 We both wanted the top bunk What
00:05 Try to get a fellow journalist to betray her integrity
00:14 Now if for some reason you don't reveal your source
00:30 Okay good I'll do all the yada yada
00:12 People are inherently decent I have found
00:08 I know you can't tell me who your source is I respect...
00:28 Look Ray if you can sleep at night you can sleep at night
00:18 Erica I'm writing a story I work for the national desk
00:10 Mr Burnside this is a real honor for me
00:06 You are an unpatriotic little cunt Okay
00:09 Thanks Nice suit
00:06 How dare you
00:06 I'm afraid I'm gonna disappoint you Mr Dubois
00:12 Right She's never had her Vassar ass in jail...
00:04 Who was your source
00:21 Why was your mom in Venezuela Was she on vacation