Page 358 - Law and the Media
P. 358

The Law in the United States of America
             21.7 Contempt of court

             The law of contempt is similar to the law in the United Kingdom. It is generally defined in
             both federal- and state-based law as disobedience of a court order or an act of disrespect in
             the face of the court such as disorderly or disruptive behaviour or behaviour that obstructs
             the administration of justice. Punishment can include a fine or a period of imprisonment.

             As in the United Kingdom, contempt is usually used to compel a person to comply with a
             court order or to punish a person who has violated an order – for example, the imprisonment
             of Susan McDougal for 18 months for refusing to testify before the ‘Whitewater’ grand jury
             investigation into President Clinton.


             21.8 Protection of journalistic sources

             Most state courts hold that journalists have a constitutional qualified privilege not to reveal
             confidential sources, following the decision of the Supreme Court in  Branzberg v Hayes
             (1972).


             Many of the states have also passed state legislation called ‘shield laws’ which protect
             journalists against being compelled to reveal their sources. Shield laws can be ‘absolute’
             providing protection except in exceptional circumstances or ‘qualified’ whereby disclosure
             can be ordered if there is a compelling need for the information.


             21.9 Obscenity and racial discrimination


             21.9.1 Obscenity

             Obscenity is a description or a depiction of sexual conduct that when taken as a whole by the
             average person:


                      Appeals to the prurient interest in sex
                      Portrays sex in a patently offensive way, and
                      Does not have any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (Miller v
                      California (1973)).

             The Supreme Court has held that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment
             to the Constitution (Roth v United States (1957)). This means that state governments are able to
             legislate to prohibit the dissemination of obscene material without unlawfully interfering with
             the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, any legislation in respect of
             obscenity must not be too vague or too broad, or it will be struck down by the courts on that
             basis. For example, a state law prohibiting the sale of any book that ‘tended to corrupt the
             morals of youth’ was held invalid because it was too broad (Butler v Michigan (1957)). The
             issue of whether material is obscene is a question of fact for the jury.
                                                                                           321
   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363