the press behaving badly: unlawfully acquired information and the first amendment

338 Pages·2008·1.42 MB·English

THE PRESS BEHAVING BADLY: FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS FOR NEWS MEDIA
AND LIMITATIONS ON LAWFUL NEWSGATHERING

By

JASMINE MCNEALY

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008
1
© 2008 Jasmine McNealy

2
To Ronald & Pamela,

“. . . parents are the pride of their children.”
Proverbs 17:6 (NIV)

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Laurence Alexander, who served as my
supervisory committee. I am grateful to him for accepting me as his advisee and for toiling with
me to complete this project, and my doctorate. His assistance facilitated my study greatly. In
addition to Dr. Alexander, I would like to thank the rest of my committee: Dean Jon Mills, Dr.
Cory Armstrong, and Dr. Bill Chamberlin. Their efforts and suggestions were greatly
appreciated. I am grateful for the love and support of a host of family, friends, and friends who
became family. Their support, generosity, and willingness to listen have been a great help as
while I worked to complete this program.

este cuento se acabado. . .

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

page
0ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER
1 11INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................9 
9Background.............................................................................................................................13 
1Literature Review...................................................................................................................24 
3Newsgathering and the First Amendment.......................................................................25 
3Unlawfully Acquired Information...................................................................................31 
3Judicial Analysis and the Freedom of the Press..............................................................40 
7Absolutism...............................................................................................................40 
7Bad tendency and “clear and present danger”..........................................................42 
7Balancing..................................................................................................................44 
1Statement of Purpose and Research Questions.......................................................................45 
1Methodology...........................................................................................................................46 
1Chapter Outline.......................................................................................................................48 
222 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE..........................................................................................50 
1Or of the Press........................................................................................................................55 
1Access to Information.............................................................................................................65 
1Newsgathering and the Law...................................................................................................71 
1Conclusion..............................................................................................................................74 
333 WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING..........................................................................75 
1Wiretap at the Federal Level...................................................................................................76 
3The Press as Third Party Recipient of Intercepted Communications..............................77 
3Press Participation In The Interception...........................................................................94 
7Not a party to the communication............................................................................95 
7Bad purpose..............................................................................................................99 
1Wiretap at the State Level.....................................................................................................111 
3California.......................................................................................................................111 
3Florida............................................................................................................................120 
3Illinois............................................................................................................................122 
3Louisiana.......................................................................................................................125 
4Maryland........................................................................................................................128 
4Massachusetts................................................................................................................130 
4Michigan........................................................................................................................134 
4Minnesota......................................................................................................................136 
4New Jersey.....................................................................................................................138 
5
4Oregon...........................................................................................................................139 
4Pennsylvania..................................................................................................................140 
4Texas..............................................................................................................................144 
4Washington....................................................................................................................145 
2Conclusion............................................................................................................................146 
44 INTRUSION AND TRESPASS...........................................................................................149 
2Intrusion................................................................................................................................150 
4Home.............................................................................................................................151 
5 Private Gatherings........................................................................................................157 
5Work..............................................................................................................................164 
5Public Persons...............................................................................................................173 
5Harassment....................................................................................................................178 
5In Public.........................................................................................................................184 
2Trespass................................................................................................................................189 
5Consent..........................................................................................................................191 
5Trespass and the First Amendment...............................................................................201 
5Criminal Trespass..........................................................................................................207 
2Joint Activities With Government Officials.........................................................................222 
5Law Enforcement..........................................................................................................229 
7Warrant searches....................................................................................................229 
7Warrantless investigations......................................................................................246 
5Other First Responders..................................................................................................250 
6Other Joint Activities With Government Officials........................................................256 
2Conclusion............................................................................................................................259 
555 MISREPRESENTATION AND BREACH OF PROMISE.................................................262 
2On Fraud and Misrepresentation and Similar Offenses........................................................264 
2Cohen v. Cowles Media Co..................................................................................................269 
2Misrepresentation and Breach of Promise Post-Cohen........................................................277 
6Breach of Promise.........................................................................................................277 
6Misrepresentation..........................................................................................................296 
2Conclusion............................................................................................................................308 
66 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION......................................................................................310 
2Analysis................................................................................................................................313 
6Research Question 1: Is Unlawfulness a Bar to First Amendment Protection for
Newsgathering Activities?.........................................................................................313 
6Research Question 2: What Value Have the Courts Placed on Unlawfully Acquired
Information and its Use by the Press to Inform the Public?......................................318 
6Research Question 3: What Kind of Scrutiny Have the Courts Used to Decide
Cases Brought Against the Media for Unlawful Newsgathering, and How Is the
Type of Scrutiny Used Determinative of the Outcome of These Cases?..................325

6
3Conclusion............................................................................................................................328 
6Key Conclusion One......................................................................................................329 
6Key Conclusion Two.....................................................................................................330 
6Key Conclusion Three...................................................................................................331 
6Key Conclusion Four.....................................................................................................331 
7Future Research.............................................................................................................332 
7LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................334 
8BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................338 

7
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE PRESS BEHAVING BADLY: FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS FOR NEWS MEDIA
AND LIMITATIONS ON LAWFUL NEWSGATHERING
By
Jasmine McNealy

August 2008
Chair: Laurence Alexander
Major: Mass Communication
The press plays a central role in American society, providing information and acting as a
surrogate for the public. At times, however, journalists’ newsgathering methods that fall outside
of what is permitted by law. As a result, the journalists have faced civil lawsuits from private
individuals and prosecution by the government for their newsgathering methods.
The U.S. Supreme Court developed a principle aimed at protecting the First Amendment
rights of news outlets that publish lawfully acquired, truthful information. The Court has not
answered whether the press could be punished for unlawfully acquiring truthful information and
then publishing that information.
This dissertation used legal research methods to examine how the courts have decided
cases in which members of the press have been sued for wiretapping, intrusion, trespass and
committing fraud to gather information, and have then published that information. This
dissertation also analyzes how the courts viewed the news organizations’ First Amendment
defenses.

8
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the
New York Times, the Washington Post and other newspapers should be
commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly.1
0
The American press has a history of engaging in questionable behavior to get a story.
From hidden cameras to outright deception, the people who provide the nation with news
seemingly know no boundaries with regard to gathering information. One journalist had herself
committed to an insane asylum to document the care given to poor, mentally ill immigrants.2
1
Another went undercover in a Chicago meat-packing plant, later writing a novel that exposed the
horrendous and unsanitary meat handling practices in the industry.3 Such stories shed light on
2
issues of public interest and in some cases brought about sweeping change. For instance, Upton
Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, based on his experience in a Chicago slaughterhouse, is credited
with sparking the passage of both the Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drugs Act of
1906.4 These changes in the law may not have occurred, however, without the public outcry that
3
resulted from these stories obtained through intrepid reporting.
Feigning madness and working as a meat-packer may be considered extreme lengths to
go to for a story. On the other hand, many journalists view such undercover reporting as
necessary to expose abuses in the public and private sector. That does not mean that this kind of
journalism does not have its detractors. Some journalism practitioners call these newsgathering

1 New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) (Black, J., concurring).
2 See Jean Marie Lutes, Into the Madhouse with Nellie Bly: Girl Stunt Reporting in Late Nineteenth-Century
America, 54 AM. Q. 217 (2002).
3 Upton Sinclair, a journalist, wrote his famous novel, The Jungle, after working undercover in a Chicago
Slaughterhouse. See Susan Paterno, The Lying Game, 19 AM. J. REV. 40, 42 (1997); Mark Feldstein, A Muckraking
Model: Investigative Reporting Cycles in American History, 11 HARV. J. PRESS/POL. 105, 109 (2006).
4 See Arlene Finger Kantor, Upton Sinclair and the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, 66 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1202
(1976); see also Justin Ewers, Don’t Read This Over Dinner, US NEWS and WORLD REPORT, Aug. 15, 2005, at 45.
9
methods “shoddy journalism unworthy of the best tradition of investigative reporting.”5 Further,
4
this kind of reporting is seen as nothing more than sensationalism bordering on excessive.6
5
But journalists have gone, and continue to go to extremes to get the scoop; advances in
technology only further their efforts to overcome physical barriers to gain access to information
considered newsworthy. The invention of the photocopy machine, for example, allowed a
government source to make a copy of a classified government study and pass it on to the New
York Times and The Washington Post.7 Even before this, advances in photography allowed a
6
New York Daily News reporter in 1928 to snap a picture of an execution from a camera hidden in
his shoe.8 Hidden cameras continue to be a favorite tool of broadcast journalists, allowing them
7
to record images for stories on slacking policemen, shiesty attorneys and patient abuse at health
care facilities.9
8
These newsgathering methods, while examining issues of public concern, have exposed
the journalists involved to multimillion-dollar lawsuits and criminal convictions. A Southern
grocery chain sued the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) after reporters from the
broadcaster’s PrimeTime Live news program secured employment at the stores and secretly
recorded unsanitary food preparation and meat packaging practices.10 In a separate case, a
9
freelance journalist was tried and convicted in federal court of receiving child pornography while
supposedly researching an article on government sting operations designed to catch child

5 Paul Starobin, Why Those Hidden Cameras Hurt Journalism, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 28, 1997, at A21.
6 Id. See also Lewis Lord, Perils of ‘gotcha’ journalism, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Feb. 3, 1997, at 11.
7See Melville Nimmer, National Security Secrets v. Free Speech: The Issues Left Undecided in the Ellsberg Case,
26 STAN. L. REV. 311 (1974).
8 Robert Lissit, Gotcha!, 17 AM. J. REV. 16, 18-19 (1995).
9 See Lissit, supra note 8.
10 See Food Lion Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, 194 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999).
10