Most of the film critics focus on professional ethics, stick to the original intention, great motherhood, human brilliance, confrontation with power, heartache female protagonists and other discussions, not to say that these should not be paid attention to, but as one of the most mature types of movies in Hollywood - Legal Affairs The movie, shouldn't we pay attention to and interpret the judicial issues in it?
Question 1. Why can't the heroine use the First Amendment to protect herself? Some people think that this is to expose power over law, false freedom, etc. American films, you can joke about the president, blow up the White House and blow up the earth, but rarely make jokes about the law, especially legal films (even the most recent film - about the historically farce-like trial of the Chicago Seven, whether historical or film In the end, everything was sorted out). The First Amendment, the Bill of Rights on Freedom of Speech and the Press, only protects the news from absolute censorship, but not necessarily from prosecution afterwards. In this case, it did protect against censorship in advance, although the government department knew that the newspaper would publish it the next day, but there was still no way to do it.
Question 2. What exactly is the government prosecuting the female protagonist after the incident? Prosecute her for exposing the government's shady secrets? To sue her for criticizing the president? Absolutely not. Although the newspaper's legal counsel has repeatedly confirmed whether the report is true, in fact, even if it is false, the government cannot prosecute it. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court has established that the media can defame the government unless the government can prove that the report was false and that the media was acting for "malicious purposes," which is nearly impossible to prove. So the government didn't pursue her report at all, and the government's purpose was to make her speak out about the government officials who leaked the secrets. No 1st Amendment charges against her for reporting or 5th Amendment for her to incriminate herself because she wasn't charged with any crime at all, as long as she said the source she was innocent, the government Instead, go to the person who leaked the secret, but if she doesn't say it, she is suspected of violating the relevant laws.
Question 3. On what grounds did the government force her to reveal the source of the information? Although more than half of the states in the United States have passed laws allowing reporters to keep informants secret, because the federal Department of Justice sued her, federal law, not state law, should apply in this case, but federal law does not have the relevant license, but has similar The law that the leaker must be revealed, so the government required her to reveal the source of the information.
Question 4. What is the Supreme Court decision? The Supreme Court has one supreme power—judicial review, and it can decide whether a law is unconstitutional, whether it is a state law passed by a state legislature and signed by a governor, or a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the president, so long as the Supreme Court deems it unconstitutional. Unconstitutional, the law can be declared invalid. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision is not at all on whether the female lead is guilty, but on whether the relevant federal laws that force the female lead to reveal the source of intelligence are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court 5:4 found that it was not unconstitutional, and the case would then be sent back to the lower court, where the lower court could legally compel her to speak out. Because of this, after the Supreme Court's verdict, the heroine's lawyer said that she was not a criminal, because the Supreme Court's decision was aimed at whether the law was unconstitutional, not whether the heroine was guilty. are criminals. It is also because the case was sent back to the lower court after the Supreme Court's decision, so the lower court judge has the right to release her if she thinks it is impossible for her to confess.
Question 5. Does the prosecutor re-arrest and prosecute the heroine after she is released, does it violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on double trials? Unfortunately, it doesn't violate it. The place where the heroine was previously detained was a detention center, not a prison. She had not been tried yet. The judge felt that it was impossible to make her yield, so she was released without a trial. So then prosecutors charged her with another charge - contempt of court (because she ignored the court's request to deny the informant), but because she was willing to enter into a plea deal (because the trial and the use of jury were exhausting, US law allows a suspect if If you plead guilty and save public money, you can get a lenient sentence), so there is no trial, and no jury is activated, in exchange for a shorter sentence.
View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews
