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