Legislating the First Amendment: Statutory Shield Laws As Non-Judicial Precedents
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LEGISLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT: STATUTORY SHIELD LAWS AS NON-JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS Dean Christian Smith A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Chapel Hill 2011 Approved by: Adviser: Dr. Cathy Packer Reader: Dr. Frank Fee Reader: Dr. Michael Hoefges Reader: Paul Jones Reader: Dr. John Semonche © 2011 Dean Christian Smith ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT DEAN SMITH: Legislating the First Amendment: Statutory Shield Laws as Non-Judicial Precedents (under the direction of Cathy Packer, Ph.D.) Legal scholars have long sought to explain how the meaning of the U.S. Constitution changes over time. Increasingly, scholars have focused on the role of non- judicial actors working outside the courts. Among scholars working under the banner of “popular constitutionalism,” Professor Michael Gerhardt at University of North Carolina Law School has propounded a theory of “non-judicial precedents” to describe how non- judicial actors make judgments about constitutional meaning and implement those judgments through, for example, social norms, codes of ethics, legislature-made statutes, and agency-made regulations. Non-judicial precedents pre-exist judicial pronouncements on many issues, and regardless of whether they are absorbed into court-made law, they gain normative force by being widely accepted over time. This dissertation has sought to test Gerhardt’s theory by applying it to a specific question in First Amendment law: Should there be a testimonial privilege to shield journalists from having to reveal confidential sources? The U.S. Supreme Court addressed that issue once, in 1972’s Branzburg v. Hayes, but the debate runs the length of American history, and state legislatures began creating statutory shield laws as early as 1896. To bridge statutory and constitutional law, and to bridge pre-Branzburg and post- iii Branzburg eras, this dissertation has woven a single narrative by transporting the entire issue into the realm of constitutional theory. In applying Gerhardt’s theory, this dissertation explored five distinct periods in journalist-privilege history, each of which advanced the issue to the benefit of journalists and, more important, helped drive debate over the meaning of the phrase “freedom of the press.” These episodes, stretching to 1894, show that, as a normative matter, the journalist-privilege issue was a First Amendment issue long before courts recognized it as such. Furthermore, when courts cite shield laws as evidence of public support for a privilege, they validate the constitutional role these statutes play. As Gerhardt’s theory would describe, shield laws acted as mechanisms for implementing deeply felt First Amendment values. As Gerhardt’s theory would predict, statutes such as shield laws can empower non-judicial actors to participate in the nation’s ever-evolving constitutional culture. iv For my mother and father, my best friends in this world v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Any acknowledgement of the help I’ve received in completing this dissertation must begin with my parents, Palma R. and Douglas H. Smith. Their boundless support – financial, spiritual, moral – made this project possible. Their love sustained me. With them at the top of the list is Dr. Cathy Packer, my adviser, teacher, mentor, counselor, taskmaster, hand-holder, drill sergeant and cry-on shoulder. I simply could not have attempted a legal-history project of this scope – dauntingly, 1894 to the present – without her belief in it, enthusiasm for it and vision for bringing it to completion. I’m grateful to the members of my committee: Dr. Frank Fee, for coaxing and coaching the historian in me; Dr. Michael Hoefges, for carefully listening and scrutinizing my thinking from a law school perspective; Paul Jones, for challenging me always to think afresh and for myself; and Dr. John Semonche, for guiding me to a deeper understanding of constitutional law, a consummate legal historian. I’m also grateful to Dean Jean Folkerts and Associate Dean Dulcie Straughan, for giving me more administrative, financial, and moral support than I could have hoped for; Dr. Rhonda Gibson, for treating me like a colleague from Day One; Anne Klinefelter, aka the Sweetie Pie of the World, for letting me read and learn with her as a research assistant; Dr. JoAnna Williamson, officemate extraordinaire, for lifting me up with kindness and, yes, a few intercessory prayers; and fellow’s fellow Woodrow Hartzog, for reducing my stress and my burden with his encouragement and advice. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION: JOURNALISTS, SHIELD LAWS, AND POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM………………..…………………..…………..1 Popular Constitutionalism: A Conceptual Framework……………………………5 Literature Review………………………………………………………………...15 The Pre-Branzburg Era…………………….…………………………….16 Garland, Branzburg, and Beyond……………………………………….20 State-Level Efforts to Protect Journalists………………………………..25 Covered Persons and Covered Media……………………………………29 Holes in the History……………………………………………………...33 A Dearth of Theory………………………………………………………39 Conclusions………………………………………………………………45 Research Questions………………………………………………………………48 Methodology……………………………………………………………………..49 Limitations……………………………………………………………………….53 vii II JOURNALIST PRIVILEGE IN THE 1890s: THE REAL STORY OF THE NATION’S FIRST SHIELD LAW…………………………………..………...54 Statutes Revolving in Common Law Orbits……………………..………58 Position of the Press in Society………………………………………………….62 Legal Footing of the Press……………………………………………….63 Status of the Privilege……………………………………………………67 Key Non-Judicial Actors in the Shriver-Edwards Affair………………………..69 John S. Shriver………………………………………………………...…69 Elisha J. Edwards………………………………………………………...70 A.J. Dittenhoefer……………………………………………………...….71 Gen. Felix Agnus………………………………………………...………72 Press Clubs………………………………………………………….……73 1894: A Mode of Constitutional Argument……………………………………...75 The Testimony……………………………………………………….......77 The Indictments………………………………………………………….79 Rhetoric in the Press……………………………………………………..81 The Demurrers…………………………………………………………...83 1895: Facilitating a National Dialogue on Constitutional Law…………………86 Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court………………………………………88 Mobilization in Baltimore………………………………………………..90 Mobilization of the League………………………………………………91 Rhetoric in the Press……………………………………………………..92 viii 1896: Settling a Legal Dispute Outside the Courts………………………………93 The Morris Disconnect………………………………………………..…95 The Shriver Connection………………………………………………….97 1897: Shaping Constitutional Culture and History………………………………99 Judicial Precedent Set………………………………………………..…104 Rhetoric in the Press……………………………………………………106 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………....…108 III JOURNALIST PRIVILEGE IN 1929: NON-JUDICIAL ACTORS AND THE QUEST FOR A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW…...………………………116 Position of the press in Society…………………………………………………120 Image and Influence…………………………………………………….120 Legal Footing………………………………………………………...…123 Status of the Privilege…………………………………………………..127 Key Non-Judicial Actors……………………………………………………….129 The Reporters…………………………………………………………...129 William Randolph Hearst……………………………………………....130 Fiorello La Guardia…………………………………………………….131 Arthur Capper…………………………………………………………..131 Reconstruction of Events……………………………………………………….133 Journalist Claims and Judicial Reaction………………………………..133 Non-Judicial Mobilization…………………………………………...…135 Facilitating a Constitutional Dialogue………………………………….136 Generating Public Support……………………………………………..139 ix Creating Network Effects………………………………………………141 Implementing Constitutional Values……………………………...……144 Extending Network Effects…………………………………………….148 Shaping Legal History………………………………………………….149 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………...….150 IV JOURNALIST PRIVILEGE IN 1968: THE TRIALS OF ANNETTE BUCHANAN AND THE ROAD TO BRANZBURG V. HAYES…..………………155 Position of the Press in Society…………………………………………………163 Image and Influence…………………………………………………….164 Legal Footing of the Press………………………………………...……167 Status of the Privilege…………………………………………………..168 Key Non-Judicial Actors……………………………………………………….171 Annette Leslie Buchanan……………………………………………….172 Warren C. Price…………………………………………………………172 Arthur C. Johnson………………………………………………………173 William F. Frye…………………………………………………………173 Journalists and Legal Scholars………………………………………….174 Historical Reconstruction: The Conviction of 1966……………………………175 Rhetoric in the Press……………………………………………………185 Historical Reconstruction: The Appeal of 1968………………………………..194 Rhetoric in the Press vs. Elite Opinion………………………………....199 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………...….203 x V JOURNALIST PRIVILEGE FROM 1972 TO 1982: TALKING BACK TO BRANZBURG IN CONGRESS, THE STATES, AND THE COURTS…………...210 Statutes Revolving in Constitutional Law Orbits……………………...214 Responses in the Congressional Realm………………………………………..218 Swaying Public Opinion……………………………………………….218 From Popular to Elite Opinion…………………………………………220 Influencing Political Opinion……………………………………..…...221 Bills Revolving in Constitutional Law Orbits………………….….…..223 Responses in the States……………………………………………….…….….228 Statutes Revolving in Constitutional Law Orbits…………….…….…..229 Covered Medium? Covered Person?.......................................................231 Responses in the Courts………………………………………………………..235 In the Second Circuit………………..………………………………….238 In the Ninth Circuit……………………………………………………..241 In the Tenth Circuit……………………………………………….…….243 In the Third Circuit……………………………………………………..245