This post was brought to mind after reading James Joyner’s post about a case in Utah in which a judge ordered a reporter to write a story.
What are the limits, if any, on the court’s ability to curtail rights e.g. of speech, free exercise, the press, etc. when acting under its equity powers?
Note the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Actions by the courts do not violate this amendment—it’s a limiting of the powers of the Congress, not of the courts.
The limitation is in the Eighth Amendment against cruel or unusual punishments. However, the reporter was found in contempt, for which I believe judges have more discretion in sentencing.
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a judge couldn’t make a person convicted of aggravated battery put a sign in front of his house warning that a violent felon lives here. The problem wasn’t forced speech, but the penalty was not reasonably related to the goal of rehabilitation and did not have specific legislative approval. Neither of these reasons have particular relevance for contempt (which is neither legislative, nor rehabilitative).
Another thought. She can be sentenced to labor, which from the reporter’s angle, that’s what this is. However, it seems to me that to complete this task she would need to draw on her station’s resources, and maybe that is a problem if the station was not found in contempt.
One other observation regarding Joyner’s post. A criminal defendant has a Constitutional right to a fair trial and a trial by jury.