Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!hoss!hoss.unl.edu!riddle
From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CNN
Message-ID: <1990Nov21.125811.17599@hoss.unl.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 90 12:58:11 GMT
References: <4948@rsiatl.UUCP> <5378@prussian9.UUCP> <5012@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov20.145849.2564@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer)
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Lines: 66

In <1990Nov20.145849.2564@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>Mike, do you know the vote distribution of the current CNN injunction
>ruling, and the distribution on the Pentagon Papers ruling? All I
>heard on the CNN  ruling was that it was 7-2, but I don't know who
>voted which way.

I'm probably not the Mike you had in mind :-) but here it is:  7-2,
Marshall and O'Connor dissenting:

                CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., ET AL. 
                               v. 
            MANUEL ANTONIO NORIEGA AND UNITED STATES 
                         90-767 (A-370) 
                       November 18, 1990. 
  ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AND ON APPLICATION TO STAY
RESTRAINING ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 
  The application to stay restraining orders of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida presented to
JUSTICE KENNEDY and by him referred to the Court is denied. 
  The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 
  JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE O'CONNOR joins, dissenting.
 
  The issue raised by this petition is whether a trial court may
enjoin publication of information alleged to threaten a criminal
defendant's right to a fair trial without ANY threshold showing
that the information will indeed cause such harm and that suppres-
sion is the only means of averting it. The District Court in this
case entered an order enjoining petitioner Cable News Network (CNN)
from broadcasting taped communications between respondent Manuel
Noriega, a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding, and his
counsel. The court entered this order without any finding that
suppression of the broadcast was necessary to protect Noriega's
right to a fair trial, reasoning that no such determination need
be made unless and until CNN surrendered the tapes for the court's
inspection. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conclusion. 
  In my view, this case is of extraordinary consequence for freedom
of the press. Our precedents make unmistakably clear that "'any
prior restraint of expression comes to this Court bearing a "heavy
presumption" against its constitutional validity,"' and that the
proponent of this drastic remedy "'carries a heavy burden of
showing justification for its imposition."' Nebraska Press Assn.
v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 558 (1976), quoting Organization for a
Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971) (citations
omitted); accord, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S.
713, 714 (1971) (per curiam). I do not see how the prior restraint
imposed in this case can be reconciled with these teachings. Even
more fundamentally, if the lower courts in this case are correct
in their remarkable conclusion that publication can be AUTOMATICAL-
LY restrained pending application of the demanding test established
by Nebraska Press, then I think it is imperative that we re-examine
the premises and operation of Nebraska Press itself. I would grant
the stay application and the petition for certiorari. 
 U.S., 1990. 
 Cable News Network, Inc., Et Al. v. Manuel Antonio Noriega  And
United States, 
 No. 90-767 



--
riddle@hoss.unl.edu                  |   University of Nebraska 
riddle@crchpux.unl.edu               |   College of Law
mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA