User:Person1428/Butterworth v Smith
 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Butterworth v Smith
[edit]Background
Previous cases that effected Butterworth v Smith:
- Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia: Virginia statue that makes it illegal to share information pertaining to proceedings before a state judicial review commission. Decided that it was a danger to conducting justice.[1]
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart: Rhinehart was a spiritual leader for a religious group, multiple newspaper companies published stories on Rhinehart and the Aquarian Foundation. Alleged defamation was brought to a Washington state court. During course discovery some respondents refused to share specific information. They were court ordered to share. They were not allowed to share information after the case, but this did not apply to information during the discovery process.[2]
Legal
Butterworth v. Smith (1990) was a court case regarding a newspaper reporter: Smith who wanted to publish a story about the grand jury testimony of a case, regarding claimed improper behavior from local public officials.[3] He was called to testify before a Florida grand jury, to speak about the allegations. During the trial Smith was informed that a state statute prevented grand jury witnesses from disclosing a testimony. Doing so could lead to criminal charges against him. He claimed that this was an infringement of his first amendment right; freedom of speech. As well as an injunction to prevent the state from disclosing his testimony. He filed his claims in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.[4]
Factual
Michael Smith, who was a reporter for Charlotte Harold-News, was writing a report and has gathered information that concerned alleged wrongful conduct in the county’s state attorney’s office and sheriff’s department. Summoned to testify before a Florida grand jury investigating the claims, Smith complied.
Following the conclusion of the grand jury’s investigation, Smith wanted to write about both the information he had uncovered and his experience testifying before the grand jury. However, a Florida statute at the time barred him from revealing his grand jury testimony. Consequently, Smith filed a lawsuit in a U.S. district court, arguing that the statute infringed upon his free speech rights.
Supreme Court decision
On March 21, 1990, the court ruled unanimously in favor of Smith stating that it is unconstitutional to violate a witness’ First Amendment rights. Therefore, states may not forbid jury witnesses from revealing their testimony in a court case after the case has closed.[5]
Opinion of the Court
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the scope of the First Amendment concerning the freedom of speech and the right to access public records. The Court held that the dissemination of info[6]rmation in public records is protected under the First Amendment, and restrictions on this dissemination must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.
The opinion emphasized the importance of transparency and the public's right to access information, indicating that the government cannot impose broad restrictions on releasing public documents without a compelling justification. Ultimately, the decision underscored the balance between governmental interests and individual rights to free expression.
Supreme Court Justices
William Rehnquist, William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy
References
[edit]- ^ "Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-10-22.
- ^ "Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-10-22.
- ^ "Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
- ^ "United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida", Wikipedia, 2024-06-25, retrieved 2024-09-25
- ^ "Butterworth v. Smith (1990)". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
- ^ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1993. Retrieved 2024-10-31.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)