Negative Case: January/February 1999

A journalist is brought to court to testify. When he is asked about his sources he claims freedom of the press. He doesn't have to tell his sources and is allowed to leave. An ordinary citizen is brought in next and when asked where he got his sources he refuses to tell. Unlike the journalist, the citizen goes to jail. This gives the journalist an unfair advantage over the citizen by making their rights unequal. It is scenarios such as this why I negate today's resolution which states Resolved: That in the United States, a journalist's right to shield confidential sources ought to be protected by the First Amendment.

[ I would like to challenge the affirmative on the following definitions:
*journalist- an editor or other professional writer for a periodical.
*right- in accordance with justice, law, or morality, fitting, proper
*shield-to defend, protect
*confidential-communicated in confidence, secret, hence, private
*sources- a point of origin, one that supplies information
*ought- to be bound, as by practical duty, by moral laws, or by conscience. To be a natural or logical consequence, to require.
*First Amendment- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.]

The value that I will support in today's round will be that of equality. Equality is being equal and having the same amount of rights. Our Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and when we uphold the resolution we make journalists and citizens unequal.

I will support my value through the criteria of Rawls Theory of Justice. Rawls believed that every member of society should enjoy equal liberties. When we uphold the resolution, we give journalists and common citizens unequal rights.

I will oppose the resolution with two areas of analysis: The people and the press.

Let's first direct our attention to Contention One: The People.
According to the sixth amendment, the accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and to be confronted with the witness against him. This clearly states that people have a right to see who accuses them. By allowing journalists to shield confidential sources the accused would not be confronted with the witness and would lose their sixth amendment rights. Also, any other citizen is required by law to tell their sources if asked by a court. As Justice White said, "The sole issue before us is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of a crime. Citizens generally are not constitutionally immune from grand jury subpoenas; and neither the first amendment nor any other constitutional provision protects the average citizen from disclosing to a grand jury information that he has received in confidence." So why should journalists be given this right? When we do this we make the majority second class citizens because their rights are taken away and are made unequal in America. According to Rawls, every member of a society should enjoy equal liberties and when we uphold the resolution we take away the rights of normal citizens and give more to the journalists which leads me to

Contention Two: The Press.
Journalists are also citizens of the United States and therefore should have to follow the laws of ordinary citizens. As the Court of Associated Press v. NLRB said, "The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws." When we allow them to have rights that ordinary citizens do not have protected under the first amendment or any other law. As Justice White once stated, "The issue in these cases is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the first amendment. We hold that it does not." So we are not limiting the rights of the press, we are only making them equal to every other member of society. The journalists are still allowed to gather information and choose what to print, but like all other citizens should be required to state sources when they are subpoenaed.

I will now move on to my opponents case.
[review as time allows] And for all these reasons, I can see no other choice but the negative.

I am now open for cross examination.