| --- |
| title: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12) (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017241)" |
| source: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12)" |
| sourceUrl: "https://www.justice.gov/epstein" |
| date: "2026-01-01" |
| category: "House Oversight" |
| eftaNumber: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017241" |
| ocrPages: 1 |
| ocrChars: 2935 |
| ocrElapsed: 0.0 |
| parseTier: "external-legacy" |
| engine: "engine undisclosed (ep-nov-12.greg.technology mirror)" |
| externalSource: "greg-ep-nov-12" |
| externalLicense: "not granted" |
| externalCredit: "ep-nov-12.greg.technology" |
| externalUrl: "https://ep-nov-12.greg.technology" |
| --- |
| |
| 4.2.12 |
| WC: 191694 |
| This situation was different; because the only purpose of publishing the child's photograph was to |
| call attention to his penis. Moreover, his parents had not consented their child to being |
| photographed by a paparazzi on an isolated beach, and so the family's privacy rights had been |
| violated. Eventually, the matter was resolved by "the court of public opinion" and the |
| "marketplace of ideas." Viewers of the blog were so outraged and the person who posted it so |
| roundly condemned, that the post was removed. |
| Another area of conflict between the First Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights |
| arises in the context of criminal trials, when the media seeks to publish information-such as an |
| excluded confession— that may prejudice a defendant's right to a fair trial. A variation on this |
| theme is the media's refusal to publish the names of alleged rape victims, while publishing the |
| names and mug shots of the defendant. This practice does not directly impinge on the First |
| Amendment because the decision not to publish is made by the media, rather than the |
| government. Indeed, the Supreme Court has struck down a statute that precluded the media from |
| publishing the names of alleged crime victims. |
| I have been involved in several cases that pitted the rights of the media under the free speech |
| rights of the First Amendment, against the fair trial rights of criminal defendants under the Sixth |
| Amendment. I have generally been on the side of the First Amendment, while sympathizing with |
| the situation faced by defendants who would prefer to see the press muzzled when it came to their |
| cases. |
| One case in which I sided with the privacy rights of a public figure over the publication rights of |
| the media was Chappaquiddick. I was part of the defense team organized by Senator Kennedy's |
| staff. Part of my job was to assure the confidentiality of the testimony given at the inquest |
| concerning the death of Mary Jo Kopenche. The witnesses who were subpoenaed to testify at |
| this secret inquest— especially the young women who shared the house for the weekend-were |
| not offered the right to counsel or other rights available at an open proceeding. We argued with |
| some success, that because the inquest was secret and lacked the usual legal safeguards of public |
| hearings, the right of the witnesses to confidentiality trumped the right of the media to immediate |
| disclosure. |
| The First Amendment requires that the media and dissenters need breathing room and |
| resumption should always be in favor of a maximalist view of free speech. But this presumptior |
| s not without significant risks to deservedly good reputations which can be damaged by |
| defamatory or ridiculing speech. As with other potentially harmful types of expression, |
| defamation and ridicule come with a heavy price one we must be prepared to pay to keep the |
| First Amendment vibrant. Not everyone is prepared to pay that price. |
| 154 |
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017241 |
|
|
