The First Amendment protects publishing and after-effects, but obtaining information is a different realm, and Houchins v. KQED, Inc. (1978), reaffirms this notion in the context of prisons and reporter's access to prisons. Houchins v. KQED was a court case in which the SCOTUS determined a "right of access" does not apply to interviewing particular prisoners. Here, an inmate committed suicide in a prison allegedly due to the poor living conditions. KQED, a public media outlet based in the Bay Area, wanted to investigate the prison and take photographs hoping to inform the public what their tax dollars were going towards, except the warden denied them access. The warden offered to take KQED investigators on a tour through nicer areas of the prison, without contact with prisoners, and without any audio or video recording devices. KQED refused to settle for this, urging the warden needs to give full access and allow KQED reporters to interview who they wanted. SCOTUS denied them.
I agree with them in that the press wasn't locked out, they still had chances to access the prison. Instead of pushing for a right of access under the banner of reporter's privilege, KQED certainly had other options besides, obviously, going on the tour. They could have talked to the attorneys of prisoners, talked to former inmates, examined public reports from the board of corrections(if the prison was up to course). My key takeaway from chapter 12 and Houchins v. KQED is that we have a difficult task of weighing our freedom of expression interests with those of conflicting interests such as maintaining public and government interests. In this example, yes, the warden has the right to regulate order in the prison through reasonable tactics at his own discretion, but doesn't the public have the right to know what happens in prisons? Prison conditions is a subject of public concern because our tax dollars go there, therefore I feel the press should have more access to the prison than was offered. And what are the implications for other areas of incarceration?
Sources:
"Houchins v. KQED, Inc." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1310.
Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
I agree with them in that the press wasn't locked out, they still had chances to access the prison. Instead of pushing for a right of access under the banner of reporter's privilege, KQED certainly had other options besides, obviously, going on the tour. They could have talked to the attorneys of prisoners, talked to former inmates, examined public reports from the board of corrections(if the prison was up to course). My key takeaway from chapter 12 and Houchins v. KQED is that we have a difficult task of weighing our freedom of expression interests with those of conflicting interests such as maintaining public and government interests. In this example, yes, the warden has the right to regulate order in the prison through reasonable tactics at his own discretion, but doesn't the public have the right to know what happens in prisons? Prison conditions is a subject of public concern because our tax dollars go there, therefore I feel the press should have more access to the prison than was offered. And what are the implications for other areas of incarceration?
Sources:
"Houchins v. KQED, Inc." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1310.
Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
This was an interesting story. I do agree that they still had a chance to access the prison other than the tour. They could have interviewed other inmates and past inmates, but I don’t think that would have been enough to under cover the full story. In this situation, it seems that the prison was keeping the press out to hide something in a sense. I understand that in some cases a warden would need to regulate the prison, but I do believe the public has a right to know where their tax dollars are going. In this case where the conditions in the prison were allegedly so bad that someone committed suicide, I think the press should have a right to investigate. The press helps create a democracy and if the government inhibits that I believe it should be warranted. In this case, I don’t think the warden had a good enough reason to deny access.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion to media access to prison conditions. Any many instances ex-offenders whom have been release tell their prison situation after the fact. Of course with many new related shows that have been broadcast on AME for example pull stunts and showcase programs to the public about prison however due to maybe certain reasons the public may never until they have committed a harsh enough crime(s) to be put into prison to understand the extremes of correctional facility. If television is changing how to see a correctional facility then media and reporters should be given more privileges to as a journalist in the United States. I believe that now versus 1978 case study, Houchins v. KQED, Inc . is not what it was when statements to the public were more censored. Today, the laws regulated around the incarcerated need to be changed.
ReplyDelete