NOTES AT ISSUE

August 2001
		Who should receive the First Amendment's freedom of the press protections? How far should those protections extend? Two experts take your questions.

Forum introduction Are only professional journalists afforded some First Amendment freedoms? Can the government take Ms. Leggett's research without compensating her? Could Ms. Leggett have destroyed her notes? How do you read the Fifth Circuit's decision? What does the decision mean for journalists?     Online Special Media Watch Aug. 16, 2001 Should Vanessa Leggett have to turn over her research to a federal grand jury? Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the media.

Eleta Malewitz of Houston, Texas asks: In other cases involving freedom of the press, has it been established that only professional journalists, working in mass media, are protected by the First Amendment? Have the courts interpreted the law to mean that nobody is entitled to publish freely unless they do so under the aegis of a major newspaper or broadcasting corporation?   Lucy Dalglish responds: The United States has a hodgepodge of reporters privilege laws. A few state laws require that a reporter be working for a "legitimate" news organization (whatever that is). Most, however, look to the activity that a journalist is involved in. The questions that must be asked are: Was the journalist collecting the information with the intention of disseminating it to the public? Did the source believe they were talking to a journalist? Therefore, the privilege belongs to book authors and freelancers as much as it applies to network correspondents.   Bruce Fein responds: The Supreme Court scrupulously protects the freedom of expression of every person, including flag burners, not just journalists or newspapers. The Leggett case relates to a narrow free speech issue -- namely, whether a grand jury investigating crime can compel any person, including the President of the United States or a news reporter, to reveal the identities of anonymous sources which might plausible assist in solving the criminality. The Supreme Court has repeatedly answered in the affirmative since the landmark 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes.