[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: juvenile's names

Garrett, I agree mostly, with a minor exception:

Garrett Wollman wrote:

> However, a secret, once broken, is no longer a secret, and there is
> nothing preventing journalists from repeating any information they
> know.  (UNLESS they learned it by listening to police scanners -- it
> is illegal to broadcast [or indeed recount in any way] information
> obtained by listening to non-broadcast radio signals.  In such a case,
> they must get confirmation from a source not subject to the ECPA.)

True, but probably unconstitutional. Prior restraints are VERY hard to uphold under
the First Amendment. To prosecute a journalist who repeated information so gained
would be unquestionably constitutional; to prohibit him from rebroadcasting it
absent a second source likely unconstitutional. A relatively narrow point, I
concede. :)

> Of course, different standard apply in other countries. ...

> There have been situations in the past where Canadian
> broadcasters have been enjoined by their courts from broadcasting the
> names of juveniles even when said names were well-known by reportage
> in the US media.

Very legal in Canada and the U.K.... our level of protection in this area is
uniquely high. Which allows abuses -- but which is preferable in my book even
despite those abuses.

- --
Douglas J. Broda
Broda and Burnett
Attorneys at Law
80 Ferry Street
Troy, New York 12180
(518) 272-0580
Fax: (518) 272-0381