Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

2009] BETRAYING TRUTH 141
As long as human beings gather and disseminate news and information,
objectivity is an unrealizable dream.
– Richard Taflinger, Edward R. Murrow School of Communication
The First Amendment is virtually absolute in protecting freedom of
speech and press. Except for defamation suits, which occur frequently,
most of the other restrictions–for example, the protection of national security
or the prevention of an imminent danger–are rarely invoked. There are
also legal limitations related to invasion of privacy and using tainted
sources of information. 5
Some say that even defamation suits threaten the vitality of First
Amendment rights. Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote
forcefully that “no law” abridging freedom of the press meant just that, and
that all libel laws therefore violate the First Amendment:
The only sure way to protect speech and press against these threats is to
recognize that libel laws are abridgments of speech and press and therefore
are barred in both federal and state courts by the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. . . . An unconditional right to say what one pleases about
public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First
Amendment. 6
But the majority of the Supreme Court has never adopted Black’s point
of view, instead staking out a middle ground by ruling that there must be a
proper accommodation between protecting reputations and ensuring
“breathing space” for First Amendment freedoms. If the press could be punished
for every error, a chilling effect would freeze publications on any
controversial subject. 7
Nevertheless, although it is well established that the First Amendment
protects journalists as well as common citizens against reproach for most of
what is spoken/written, the only protection for readers against biased or
false information is the good faith and objectivity of the media.
As is the case with other professions, the press’s independence has
been justified by its role in upholding the public good. A “social responsibility”
theory was articulated in the influential 1947 Hutchins Commission
5. See Amy Gajda, “What if Samuel D. Warren Hadn’t Married a Senator’s
Daughter?: Uncovering the Press Coverage that Led to the Right to Privacy,” Michigan
State Law Review 35 (2008) and Robert M. O’Neil, “Tainted Sources: First
Amendment Rights and Journalistic Wrongs,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
4 (1996): 1005.
6. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75, p. 95 (1966).
7. See website of First Amendment Center, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.
org/about.aspx?item’about_fac.