Within digital communication, there have been a lot of landmark cases that have paved the way and created precedents for future cases and events. Out of all the landmark cases, there are three in specific that come to mind: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964, New York Times Co. v. United States in 1971, and Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire in 1942. These all have impact within digital communication because they laid the precedents for future cases to be able to follow and be upheld. These also helped to shape more of the definition of the right of freedom of speech and the specific protections that the Constitution may provide to media professionals such as journalists and reporters.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was concerning the New York Times for publishing an advertisement to donate on behalf of Martin Lither King Jr. due to perjury charges (Oyez). The advertisement in itself had small factual inaccuracies, and while it did not name Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, Sullivan still sent in a request for the New York Times to retract the information (Oyez). The New York Times then refused and had a libel suit filed against them, as well as a group of African American ministers that were also mentioned within the advertisement (Oyez). Since Sullivan was considered to be a public figure, it was not enough to just show that the statement was false for the advertisement to be liable for defamation or libel. He needed to also show that the statement was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the false information (Oyez).
This created the conclusion of “actual malice” which specifies any libel or defamatory statements for public figures. These public figures can span anywhere from government authorities, celebrities, professional athletes, leaders of corporations or businesses and any individuals that are essential people within controversial subjects that are covered by the media (Digital Media Law Project, n/d). This impacts the Internet, social media, and digital communication as a whole for public figures like celebrities that are very much within the spotlight. Now, public figures need to prove more than just the false statement, but it still means that media professionals need to be careful within publishing content that are accurate, or if false and about a public figure, they need to make sure they have tried to do their due diligence to ensure that they’re not just writing false information to be able to publish something.
Within New York Times Co. v. United States, The New York Times published front-page articles that covered sensitive information from the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers, originally called the “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force,” were sent in by Daniel Ellsberg and indicated private information that needed security clearance (History.com, 2011). Since the New York Times published the stories about the administration of John F. Kennedy, the U.S. Department of Justice had a temporary restraining order and argued that it was detrimental to national security to release the papers and make the information more widely known (History.com, 2011). The Washington Post helped The New York Times to fight for the permission and right to publish the information. The U.S. Government then failed to show and prove that there truly was harm to national security and that the New York Times was justified due to the First Amendment which included Freedom of Speech and Press (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017). This case helps to guide communication professionals while creating messages. It shows that the government cannot just silence their reports as long as the actions are legal and do not immediately harm national security. With credibility and backed up sources, the information can be published such as interviews from veterans as long as it doesn’t directly reveal sensitive and private information like positions and responses used by the government that could impact national security.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire occurred in 1941 where Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah Witness member, handed out pamphlets in Rochester, New York and made remarks on other religious organizations. His remarks were so critical on the other religions that individuals gathered together and began to inconvenience the city area. Chaplinsky was then taken away to a local police station but did not stop his statements there. He then had offensive comments to the authorities and was convicted under New Hampshire law which forbade “… any offensive, derisive, or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, or call him by any offensive or derisive name (Cornell University Law School, n/d). Chaplinsky challenged that it infringed his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights within the Constitution. This created the Fighting Words Doctrine.
The Fighting Words Doctrine states that “the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances (Hudson, 2003). It instead set aside portions of speech such as the “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words” (Hudson, 2003) since they tend to “incite an immediate breach of the peace”. This, even though it was well before the digital era of communication, still has an impact on media professionals since it bars them from creating and spreading material that could contain fighting words that will not be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
For best guidelines, media professionals should ensure that they avoid “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words” (Hudson, 2003). By avoiding these words, they can ensure that their communication will avoid offending their readers or followers but still be able to provide information about events factually and accurately. Another best guideline is checking authority. By checking authority, one will be able to see how accurate a source may be on the events. By using credible sources, it helps to reduce the chance for libel or defamation since the information reported will be checked into. Also, by checking into sources, it also helps to reduce actual malice from most cases with public figures since the company or the media professional would check their information and publish the most accurate information that they could find about the event or item that they are reporting upon. Finally, another best practice is to report the honest truth and be unbiased in what one is reporting. For instance, reporting the truth on any news story ensures that media professionals are providing information to the public regardless of what their own take on it may be. Especially within censorship, if reporters didn’t publish the Pentagon Papers, the public would not have known about the assassination of Vietnamese President Ngo Dihn Diem and other classified information. Reporters and all media professionals should just report on any relevant story that provides factual information to the public.
Com 530 Law and Ethics 