The Trump-Opposed ‘PRESS Act’ Would Stand in the Way of Justice

A journalist watched teenagers manufacture illegal drugs, spoke with numerous drug dealers, and personally witnessed the unlawful use of illicit drugs. The journalist reported his observations and conversations in a statewide publication.

After reading the reporter’s first-hand accounts, the local grand jury issued a subpoena to the reporter seeking to discover the identities of the individuals he observed and with whom he spoke. The reporter refused to comply with the subpoena, claiming the First Amendment protected him from divulging this information to the grand jury. Was the reporter correct?

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Branzburg v. Hayes, said he was not. Citing the importance of the subpoena power to the grand jury process, the Court could find “no basis for holding that the public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings is insufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering that is said to result from insisting that reporters, like other citizens, respond to questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.”

Unsatisfied with the limits of the First Amendment, the media is pressing to change the law. The “Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying Act” or “PRESS Act” passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is pending before the Senate. The PRESS Act would prohibit all federal entities, including grand juries and courts, from compelling a journalist to disclose any information identifying a source who provided information and any records, contents of a communication, documents, or information the journalist obtained or created.

In short, the PRESS Act would allow reporters to do what the First Amendment does not. A reporter could personally witness the manufacture, sale, and use of illicit drugs. She could report this information in the name of “journalism” and could refuse to tell a grand jury the information leading to criminal convictions of drug manufacturers and dealers. Do we really want to protect criminals in the name of journalism? Of course not.

That’s most likely why President Donald Trump has urged Congressional Republicans to “kill this bill.”

There is a reason why faith in the media is at an all-time low. Many individuals identifying as “journalists” are little more than political advocates pressing a self-serving agenda detached from the truth. I have witnessed this first-hand with Mississippi Today’s repeated claims that former Governor Phil Bryant embezzled, steered to his family and friends, and misused and squandered $77 million of public funds. He did none of these things, but saying he did helped Mississippi Today to raise millions of dollars. We will prove this and more in Governor Bryant’s pending defamation action by discovering and introducing into evidence the sources, records, communications, documents, and other information currently known only to Mississippi Today.

Enough is enough.

Political activists masquerading as media are not above the law. When they publish malicious lies, they should be held accountable. The PRESS Act would stand in the way of justice. For this reason, it must fail.

---

William M. Quin II is a member at McCraney Montagnet Quin & Noble PLLC in Ridgeland, Miss. He also serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law and routinely serves as a continuing education lecturer on civil litigation topics. Billy has also authored several law review and law journal articles.