Baltimore Sun v. Ehrlich (2005) (Essay Sample)

Baltimore Sun v. Ehrlich (2005) Name Institutions Citation Every reporter has the right publish news, and unconfined press is necessary to restrain misgovernment, Houchins V.KQED 438 U.S. 1, 98 s.ct.2588, 57 L.Ed. 2d 553 (1978).However the right does include unrestrained right to access all sources of information within government control. The fourth circuit similarly does not recognize a journalist’s right to be treated equally to other journalists in accessing public information in this case where Mr. Nitkins was excluded in in the governor’s press briefings, Snyder v. Ringgold, No. 97-1358, slip-on at 4th Cir.(1998). The Case In November 18 2004 former governor of Maryland Robert L. Ehrlich issued an executive order banning state executive employees from talking to the Baltimore Sun’s columnist Michael Olesker and reporter David Nitkin on grounds that the coverage of these two had had been unfair. Upon reception of the memorandum bearing the order state government employees who were regular contacts for Mr. Nitkin declined to Comment and be interviewed for opinions on stories. Mr Olesker also reported that his usual contacts were unwilling to provide him with facts and opinions after the governor passed the order. The Sun filed a case against Ehrlich’s administration for depriving the Sun of their First Amendment rights. The case got dismissed by a District Court Judge. The Sun appealed to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals but the previous dismal was upheld. Issues The administration of Ehrlich decided to block Nitkin and Olesker from access to information on its administration. Does the government have the right to withhold information from certain journalists? Do the rights of the news media to access of information exceed the rights of the citizens on the same matter? Issue (I) -No. The government has the right to decide which journalists to work closely with-those it deems trustworthy. David Nitkin and Michael Olesker were not denied access to public information. After the memorandum, Mr Nitkin attended at least three press conferences held by the governor. What he got exempted from was press briefings. The Supreme Court has so far not constructed a first amendment right of access to all sources of information within a government’s control. In this case the Sun did not demonstrate any irreparable harm caused to it by the governor’s order. The violation of a First Amendment right constitutes irreparable harm ,Elrod V. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373,96 S.Ct. 2673,49 l.Ed.2d 547 (1976). Issue (ii) - No.Though the news media represent the public their rights is defined by the scope of the same rights of the citizens to access of information. The degree of access to information varies among the public. There is information that is availed to the general public and there is privilege information. The Governor’s memorandum was implemented reasonably to ensure that the Sun still had access to generally available public information. The sun sought a privileged status beyond that of the private citizen, that basis for injunction relief is not recognized by the Supreme Court or the Fourth Circuit. How the First Amendment was applied to this case District Judge William Quarles Jr. in Baltimore dismissed the case on grounds that journalists do not have a greater First Amendment right than private citizens to access government information. However it was not like the Baltimore Sun was forcing the government for information- it wanted equality because the Maryland government was giving others information except Mr Nitkin and Mr. Olesker. This was the basis of the suit, but this issue was not addressed in the Judge’s decision. As stated earlier Judges on these cases form their own standards on what is desirable or expedient. The judge cited Branzburg v.Hayes in 1972 in which the Supreme Court ruled that reporters have no privilege from testifying before grand juries. He reasoned that the ruling was not only applicable to grand juries but also to accessing information from the government. How FOIA or specific laws might allow or limit access to information in this case The right to access of information and freedom of expression is not absolute; it involves the balancing of interests between the government and the individual. The Supreme Court has not recognized or constructed access to all government’s information and sources. In this case the state government argued that the two reporters’ previous works on the state government was unfair –clearly injurious to the governments operations. However this is the main function of the first amendment to encourage transparency and good governance. If the state government makes the decision on what to report and what not to by choosing specific reporters and leaving out others, the readers’ first amendment is also violated. The implications of the court’s decision on media and communication After the ruling there was increased withholding of information from reporters. City authorities, politicians and CEOS passed orders to their employees not to speak to reporters whenever they wished. The job of reporters to inform and educate the public was ma...