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.

Pierre Hartman of Tehachapi, CA asks: The government’s actions in this case appear to be an invasion of the Constitutional right against an uncompensated taking from Vanessa Leggett of her personal work product, no part of which was the result of any criminal activity on her part. Is that what’s happening here? Can the government do that?   Lucy Dalglish responds: Actually, I've never heard the reporters privilege issue compared to an unconstitutional "taking." As with any other witness, most government prosecutors want copies of what you have, not your original work product. Also -- most laws regarding subpoenas require you to be compensated for your time in collecting the information and for any costs you incur in making the copies. When I worked as a litigator for media companies, we routinely charged people who subpoenaed video tapes of already broadcast (therefore non-confidential) material about $200 for each tape.   Bruce Fein responds: It has never been thought to be a government taking of property to obtain information from a witness or an individual generally, even if it commands a commercial market. In the Leggett case, moreover, the information sought would remain secret under grand jury rules. If the government did seek to publish her information for profit, she could bring a copyright infringement action for damages.