First Amendment & The Press

When the media prints a story from unnamed sources and then refuse to divulge the names of the sources as this would cause sources to dry up I understand. This has to be tempered by the threat of made up sources and the media does a pretty good job of roasting it's own when such a violation is uncovered.

This weekend I was reading the WSJ opinions page from August 19 -20th, 2006. One of the areas I always look to is the upper right hand corner of the second page. Sometimes the opinion expressed in this area is of little to no interest. In this edition I found it interesting. Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a lawyer by trade, was expressing his opinion on a lawsuit regarding the use of a phone conversation originally acquired via illegal means. Mr. Boutrous represents Dow Jones, which is noted, so clearly his opinion will support that of the media and the WSJ.

Mr. Boutrous argues that although the taping of the phone conversation was illegal the reporters, and a congressmen who actually received the tape first and passed it on, had a right to publish it as the conversation was accurate and the reporters committed no crime. The argument is obviously one around the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

I disagree. If my TV is stolen and the thief gets on EBAY and sells it, I still expect my TV back. I don't expect the buyer to be arrested. If the Buyer knew the TV was stolen neither they nor anyone else would have purchased it I would like to think. Similar to a pawn store where they actively check for stolen merchandise before purchasing anything to avoid problems with the law and their business licenses.

It is illegal to tape phone conversations without the parties being aware of the taping. The conversation is now stolen property and is readily identifiable as so. A respectable news organization should make sure to return the property and not publish it.

A prosecutor in a court of law would not be able to use such a piece of evidence to convict someone so if it could taint a court proceeding why doesn't it taint a news organization?