Supreme Court

The vagueness of the First Amendment , which solely talks of the liberties of the press rather than a paper's responsibilities has caused numerous court cases since the time that our founding fathers penned the Bill of Rights.   Throughout the years we see that the Press justifying their reporting by using the First amendment as a defense.   Such a defense is seen in the Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. V. Hepps court case of 1985.
Maurice S. Hepps is the principal stockholder of General Programming, Inc. (GPI), a corporation that franchises a chain of stores, known for selling beer, soft drinks, and snacks.   Between May 1975 and May 1976, the Philadelphia Inquirer, owned by Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. published five articles which reported that Maurice S. Hepps and her corporation had links to organized crime and used those links to influence the State's governmental processes, in both the Legislature and Administrative portions of Pennsylvania's government.   The articles discussed a GPI's manipulation of the Liquor Control Board and the supposed investigation by the Grand Jury of Hepps's connections to "known mafia figures".
Hepps brought a suit for defamation against appellants in a Pennsylvania state court.   Using Gertz V. Robert Welch Inc. as a precedent, which ruled that "ordinary citizens should be allowed more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye."   Also Pennsylvania requires a private figure who brings a suit for defamation to bear the burden of proving negligence or malice by the defendant in publishing the statements at issue.   Pennsylvania follows the common law's presumption that an individual's reputation is a good one, thus defaming said person are believed to be false.   This however is rendered useless in the State Court if a reporter says the defamatory remarks for the reporter has an absolute defense and does not necessarily need to name his or her sources through the protection of the "Shield Law".
The...