Question

balancing conflicting rights
as you should know from your study of our constitutions bill of rights, the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press to all americans. this makes sure that an oppressive government or other people in positions of power cannot unrightfully censor speech (in this case, the written word). you should also know that the sixth amendment guarantees that persons accused of a crime have the right to call witnesses to appear in a court of law to aid their case.
sometimes, however, rights within our constitution come into conflict with each other. when they do, which amendment should be followed? consider the following case:
jennifer is a newspaper reporter for the boston globe. she is covering a murder case that is about to go to trial. while doing research for her news story, jen is given new information about the case. jen promises her source, the person with the information (mr. x), that she will not identify him. using the new information, jen writes the story for her newspaper.
michael is the person going on trial for murder. he reads the newspaper story and believes this new information means that there is a witness who could help his case and set him free. mike asks the court to make jennifer identify her source.
here is the conflict: jen claims that the first amendment protects her from government (i.e. “the court”) interference in reporting the story. to do that reporting, she insists she must be able to get information from sources who may not want to be identified. such sources will trust her only if she can keep her promise not to identify them. mike, however, says that the sixth amendment protects his right to call witnesses at his trial and mr. x may have evidence that would make a difference in the case.

1. explain what you think should be done in this case and why. take into consideration the following:

we do not know exactly what mr. x knows. it may be the testimony that sets mike free; it may be that this new information wont help him.
jen cannot testify as to what mr. x knows. that is called “hearsay”.
we do not know what will happen to jen if she is forced to give up her source.
jen asked mr. x again if he would come forward on his own. he said “no” and she recommitted to her promise.
we do not know why mr. x wants his identity kept hidden. it may be that he feels his life is in danger; it may be something entirely different.

1. take it a step further. you own the boston globe. what would you do if your employees actions came back to you and your company was forced to take action (force it out of her, fire her) or suffer criminal litigation from the state and/or civil litigation from michael.

Explanation:

In this case, the Sixth Amendment's right to a fair - trial for the accused (Michael) and the First Amendment's protection of the press (Jennifer) are in conflict. Given the uncertainties such as the unknown value of Mr. X's information and the potential harm to Jennifer if she reveals the source, the court should balance these rights carefully. Jennifer's promise to Mr. X is important for maintaining the integrity of the press and the ability to gather information. However, if Mr. X's information is crucial for Michael's fair - trial, a more in - depth inquiry may be needed. As the owner of The Boston Globe, firing Jennifer may set a bad precedent for press freedom, but ignoring the legal demands may lead to litigation. A possible approach could be to fight the legal demands in court while exploring ways to encourage Mr. X to come forward voluntarily, perhaps with guarantees of protection.

Answer:

1. The court should conduct a more in - depth inquiry to balance the First and Sixth Amendment rights. The uncertainty about Mr. X's information value and the importance of press freedom mean that Jennifer should not be forced to reveal the source lightly. However, if it can be shown that Mr. X's information is essential for Michael's fair trial, appropriate measures to protect Mr. X while allowing the information to be used should be explored.
2. As the owner of The Boston Globe, fight the legal demands in court to protect press freedom and the integrity of the company's reporting. At the same time, work to encourage Mr. X to come forward voluntarily, perhaps by offering protection or other incentives, to avoid potential criminal and civil litigation while also upholding the principles of a free press.