Fred Thompson - " .. this will get out of hand. It will get out of hand and we'll be lucky to live through it ..."

You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

The judge should sentence her to time in my pants.

abhorrent1: The judge should sentence her to time in my pants.

That's a pretty  short sentence

/Try the veal

Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

" Not as many people care about this as much as they ought to, which is one of the consequences of working for a nakedly partisan shiatshow masquerading as news outlet."

Perhaps if you're a child this is true.
No work on whether Gawker doesn't find Gawker to be a partisan shiatshow masquerading as a news outlet

Ah, gag orders. They always miss something, like janitors and secretaries. I'd bet her source doesn't even know they were a source.

Then again, she could have just be a lucky guesser. Wouldn't be the millionth time someone wrote a guess. We normally don't hear about the things that get retracted.

Jana Winter, a dogged and capable reporter who writes for Fox News' web site, is being by an overzealous Colorado judge who wants her to reveal her sources.

Lol, it's Fox News......they make up most of their "sources".

Yeah, it must get frustrating for the many(not all) conservatives who would deny rights to anyone who doesn't share their political views/values to see that the 'libruls' want to defend the rights of someone who works for the other team.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Yes, because outing a CIA operative is exactly the same.

/Wondered why conservatives didn't want people in jail for putting CIA operatives at risk. Hmmmm.

Rwa2play: randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

I love how you go right for your point and then scurry back into your hole whenever someone points out the flaws in your argument.

from a guy who thinks this reporter should be hung out to dry because her employer made it's bed? Gee

Fox should use their well practiced Valerie Plame defense.

Byno: abhorrent1: The judge should sentence her to time in my pants.

That's a pretty  short sentence

/Try the veal

obligatory

randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Fox News is not a reason to go after a press person. If there is legal reason to prosecute regardless of news affliation then go for it, if not then(much as I hate Fox News) it would be wrong to go after her.

Creates a bad precident and opens the door for more legal sniping on reporters if you don't have actual solid standing beyond affiliation.

Now back to the rest of the thread which will no doubt have the normal shills and trolls blaming liberals and so on so forth.

The source of that headline needs protecting.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident.

The only newspaper in the UK to have form for revealing sources - resulting in prison time - is that standard bearer of the liberal left, the Guardian.

A story of a boy who cried excessively of a nonexistent wolf comes to mind.

theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

[citation needed]

It is a sign a wisdom to be able to show compassion to those with whom you do not agree.

Rwa2play: skullkrusher: Rwa2play: randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

I love how you go right for your point and then scurry back into your hole whenever someone points out the flaws in your argument.

from a guy who thinks this reporter should be hung out to dry because her employer made it's bed? Gee

Well, yeah.  Your point being?

you already made it. Nevermind.

Magorn: This always happens.  COntrary to popular belief there is no legal "reporter's privilege" the way there is for doctors, lawyers, priests , spouses, therapists, etc.   So what always happens is somebody get pissed over the leak, the reporter  is pressed to reveal thier source, they refuse, a judge orders them to do it, they still refuse, they go to jail for contempt of court,  much media hand-wringing ensues, at some point the judge realizes that the reporter is never going to comply, at which point they have the option of converting the case into a criminal contempt prosecution for which the reporter can get six months in jail, or letting the reporter go, which they invariably do.   So why do it at all? Because A) the law says they have to, and B) a lot of times there is hope that seeing the reporter rot in jial puts pressure on the source to out themselves

Does it ever work? The usual expression about fighting an opponent who buys ink by the barrel and all. I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

Zalan: Yeah, it must get frustrating for the many(not all) conservatives who would deny rights to anyone who doesn't share their political views/values to see that the 'libruls' want to defend the rights of someone who works for the other team.

No, they won't notice it , so it won't infuriate them.

theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Citation, please.

This is why we have whistleblower protection laws (yes that are rarely followed). If you illegally obtain information and post it to the public, lets say I hacked someone's medical information and posted it online, that is breaking the law. You can't just claim that you are a reporter and suddenly its alright. Your actions need to serve the public good and there needs to be a reason you blew the whistle. This reporter has neither.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Man, it's a good thing there aren't any examples of the liberal MSM siding with Fox News in a conflict with a Democratic administration. Because that could be embarrassing for you.

And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press."All the networks said, that's it, you've crossed the line," said CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters Dick Cheney and his flying monkey minions in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Does *everything* have to come out of your ass? That's some high-fiber diet you got there.



\it was Cheney and his flunkies who outed Plame, proudly, to a douchebag reporter. We all knew who the criminal was right then
\\ I know, I know - "fact-free zone". Please proceed, Governor

Citations? Hah. Gun nuts + smug conservative Christian worldview = mass murderers. QED.

Zalan: Yeah, it must get frustrating for the many(not all) conservatives who would deny rights to anyone who doesn't share their political views/values to see that the 'libruls' want to defend the rights of someone who works for the other team.

I don't think we're reading the same thread. It seems like most of the liberals in here are fine with her rotting in jail.

Byno: abhorrent1: The judge should sentence her to time in my pants.

That's a pretty  short sentence

/Try the veal

Well it is supposed to be a punishment. I guarantee it would be horrible for her.

theorellior: Citations? Hah. Gun nuts + smug conservative Christian worldview = mass murderers. QED.

Yeah, you might want to look up who these whack jobs were. Your bias is showing. You might want to switch to boxer briefs

Rwa2play: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

Pretty much that.

Yeah, rights should only be defended for those whom you agree with, and are fine, upstanding citizens... the ironic thing is: you probably love the ACLU.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Citation, please.

Study it out, the evidence is right there.
Just study it out.

Contribution Corsair: Fox News is not a reason to go after a press person. If there is legal reason to prosecute regardless of news affliation then go for it, if not then(much as I hate Fox News) it would be wrong to go after her.

Creates a bad precident and opens the door for more legal sniping on reporters if you don't have actual solid standing beyond affiliation.

Now back to the rest of the thread which will no doubt have the normal shills and trolls blaming liberals and so on so forth.

Probably.

Gawker was less than explicit on a couple of points, and their sources were mostly Fox News whining and whinging about the liberal media not giving this 24/7 coverage.  The main questions are when the gag order and the story were released (it is implied the gag order came down AFTER the story, but not stated) and what local whistleblower laws are.

I can see a situation where this would be justified, but it is a highly unlikely situation.

Byno: abhorrent1: The judge should sentence her to time in my pants.

That's a pretty  short sentence

/Try the veal

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO L OLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

/he has a small penis, get it?

Prank Monkey: [citation needed]

The guy who shot three cops dead in Pittsburgh because they were "coming to take his guns" had numerous right-wing screeds in his possession by such notable idiots as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Jared Lee Loughner, though fundamentally more insane than anything else, was clearly ininfluenced by a number of what are traditionally right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.

Jim David Adkisson explicitly went out looking to "kill liberals, African-Americans, homosexuals" and made a kill list based off of Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who are Screwing Up America".

Timothy McVeigh was a far right anti-government lunatic.

Wade Michael Page was a white supremacist.

I don't know if I'd say somethign as specific as mass killers are usually republicans, but there's a pretty clear correlation between conservative ideology (and especially far-right ideology) and violence against people. Crazy-ass left-wingers seem to be more intent with burning down property and smashing windows. Crazy-ass right-wingers seem to have an unfortunate tendency to prefer shooting people or blowing them up.

It's almost like when you have multiple fat farks on TV and radio all day long vilifying people they disagree with as subhuman and blaming all of the world's ills on those people that some of the less stable viewers and listeners might not react in the most level-headed and responsible way.

If only there were a historical precedent for that type of propaganda and its eventual outcomes that we could learn from....

Rabbitgod: Byno: abhorrent1: The judge should sentence her to time in my pants.

That's a pretty  short sentence

/Try the veal

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO L OLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

/he has a small penis, get it?

it's really a dig on his inseam but...

This text is now purple: I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Going after a judge will negatively effect the stock price. Won't happen.

Magorn: This always happens.  COntrary to popular belief there is no legal "reporter's privilege" the way there is for doctors, lawyers, priests , spouses, therapists, etc.   So what always happens is somebody get pissed over the leak, the reporter  is pressed to reveal thier source, they refuse, a judge orders them to do it, they still refuse, they go to jail for contempt of court,  much media hand-wringing ensues, at some point the judge realizes that the reporter is never going to comply, at which point they have the option of converting the case into a criminal contempt prosecution for which the reporter can get six months in jail, or letting the reporter go, which they invariably do.   So why do it at all? Because A) the law says they have to, and B) a lot of times there is hope that seeing the reporter rot in jial puts pressure on the source to out themselves

You are slightly off, as with many issues like this the US, there is no federal shield law to protect reporters from having to give up the identity of their sources, however many states do. Colorado does have a shield law but from what I can tell it allows for Judges to compel reporters to give up the identity of their sources if they can be found through no other means. To me that sounds like it means this law is largely useless and based on the fact that this reporter is facing jail time supports that.

CheatCommando: This text is now purple: I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Going after a judge will negatively effect the stock price. Won't happen.

why would it do that? The ZOG? Illuminati connections of the judge? Trying to understand the mechanism here.

She won't be missed.

the.squid: Magorn: This always happens.  COntrary to popular belief there is no legal "reporter's privilege" the way there is for doctors, lawyers, priests , spouses, therapists, etc.   So what always happens is somebody get pissed over the leak, the reporter  is pressed to reveal thier source, they refuse, a judge orders them to do it, they still refuse, they go to jail for contempt of court,  much media hand-wringing ensues, at some point the judge realizes that the reporter is never going to comply, at which point they have the option of converting the case into a criminal contempt prosecution for which the reporter can get six months in jail, or letting the reporter go, which they invariably do.   So why do it at all? Because A) the law says they have to, and B) a lot of times there is hope that seeing the reporter rot in jial puts pressure on the source to out themselves

You are slightly off, as with many issues like this the US, there is no federal shield law to protect reporters from having to give up the identity of their sources, however many states do. Colorado does have a shield law but from what I can tell it allows for Judges to compel reporters to give up the identity of their sources if they can be found through no other means. To me that sounds like it means this law is largely useless and based on the fact that this reporter is facing jail time supports that.

Colorado's shield law is a qualified privilege that sounds all nice and steadfast until you get to the qualifications. Reporters have no legal protection if:
"(a) That the news information is directly relevant to a substantial issue involved in the proceedings;
(b) That the news information cannot be obtained by any other reasonable means; and
(c) That a strong interest of the party seeking to subpoena the news person outweighs the interests under the first amendment to the United States Constitution of such news person in not responding to a subpoena and of the general public in receiving news information."

From my perspective, (a) is applicable here, (b) hasn't been fully explored, and (c) is totally up the judge's discretion, rendering the shield law about as steadfast as a bowl of oatmeal.

Dr Dreidel: randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident.

wat

Wasn't it a Libby-Libby Leftist at the Jew York Times who actually did get thrown in jail?

// OK, so Miller is not a "leftist", she just works at their HQ

You've already forgotten about her  "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling?  ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

I am amused by the commenters crying "hypocrisy". Unike Fox "News", I don't ever remember Gawker posturing themselves as a front-line news gathering organization...

Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree.  This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement.  Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

I could of swore Janet Reno was a democrat, this news must really be hard on the Weaver and Waco families.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

<strawman.jpg>

I didn't want reporters thrown in jail for the Plame leak. I wanted Cheney thrown in jail for it.

skozlaw: Prank Monkey: [citation needed]

The guy who shot three cops dead in Pittsburgh because they were "coming to take his guns" had numerous right-wing screeds in his possession by such notable idiots as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Jared Lee Loughner, though fundamentally more insane than anything else, was clearly ininfluenced by a number of what are traditionally right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.

Jim David Adkisson explicitly went out looking to "kill liberals, African-Americans, homosexuals" and made a kill list based off of Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who are Screwing Up America".

Timothy McVeigh was a far right anti-government lunatic.

Wade Michael Page was a white supremacist.

I don't know if I'd say somethign as specific as mass killers are usually republicans, but there's a pretty clear correlation between conservative ideology (and especially far-right ideology) and violence against people. Crazy-ass left-wingers seem to be more intent with burning down property and smashing windows. Crazy-ass right-wingers seem to have an unfortunate tendency to prefer shooting people or blowing them up.

It's almost like when you have multiple fat farks on TV and radio all day long vilifying people they disagree with as subhuman and blaming all of the world's ills on those people that some of the less stable viewers and listeners might not react in the most level-headed and responsible way.

If only there were a historical precedent for that type of propaganda and its eventual outcomes that we could learn from....

Are you high, Mcveigh's motive was revenge for Weaver and Waco and notably absent from your list are all the left wing whacko killings, is the L broken in google search for you?

Guns are designed to take human life. Love guns? Then you love murder.

There are lots of crazy people at way off both ends of the political spectrum.  The thing they all have in common is that they're farking crazy.

Rwa2play: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree.  This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement.  Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

As a matter of principle?  Yeah, we should.  Even though she works for a "news" organization that's really a puppet of the GOP, I wouldn't give them the damn satisfaction of crying victim by letting them twist in the wind.

They'll do it anyways because that's the way they work.

that's not why you should defend her. You really, really don't get it huh?
Shocking.

The prospect that she may go to jail for doing her job is an outrage.

No, it's not. It's an occupational hazard of being a reporter.

Reporters don't have some sort of first amendment right to keep their sources confidential, nor do they (or should they) have immunity from subpoena. Even information that is confidential under most circumstances (such as medical records) is subject to subpoena.

Reporters do have the same option as any other citizen--to refuse to comply with the subpoena (which is Latin for "under penalty"), and take the consequences. In her case, consequences are likely to be incarceration until the end of the trial, at which point the information is no longer of any value.

skullkrusher: CheatCommando: This text is now purple: I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Going after a judge will negatively effect the stock price. Won't happen.

why would it do that? The ZOG? Illuminati connections of the judge? Trying to understand the mechanism here.

You think that judge doesn't have friends, especially if he has the "dirty laundry" you are positing? News organizations are not about news - they are about steady profits for the shareholders. That's why we see nothing about oil spills and the like and plenty of stories about Justin Bieber's monkey.

Investigative journalism is high risk with little reward - you will only see it when an ideological enemy can be targeted, and even then it can blow up in your face. Ask Dan Rather, who as it turns out, was correct about Shrub's military service.

skullkrusher: "No work on whether Gawker doesn't find Gawker to be a partisan shiatshow masquerading as a news outlet"

No, they're a tabloid shiatshow masquerading as a ... tabloid shiatshow.
Ok, so it's not much of a masquerade, really.  I mean, it's right there in the domain name, isn't it?

protect those that do right
slam the bastards that do wrong

(no matter what side they are on)

abhorrent1: The judge should sentence her to time in my pants.

skozlaw: Prank Monkey: [citation needed]

The guy who shot three cops dead in Pittsburgh because they were "coming to take his guns" had numerous right-wing screeds in his possession by such notable idiots as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Jared Lee Loughner, though fundamentally more insane than anything else, was clearly ininfluenced by a number of what are traditionally right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.

Jim David Adkisson explicitly went out looking to "kill liberals, African-Americans, homosexuals" and made a kill list based off of Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who are Screwing Up America".

Timothy McVeigh was a far right anti-government lunatic.

Wade Michael Page was a white supremacist.

I don't know if I'd say somethign as specific as mass killers are usually republicans, but there's a pretty clear correlation between conservative ideology (and especially far-right ideology) and violence against people. Crazy-ass left-wingers seem to be more intent with burning down property and smashing windows. Crazy-ass right-wingers seem to have an unfortunate tendency to prefer shooting people or blowing them up.

It's almost like when you have multiple fat farks on TV and radio all day long vilifying people they disagree with as subhuman and blaming all of the world's ills on those people that some of the less stable viewers and listeners might not react in the most level-headed and responsible way.

If only there were a historical precedent for that type of propaganda and its eventual outcomes that we could learn from....

All (or nearly all?) of the militia groups are right wingers. I'm pretty sure the closest thing we have to a radical/violent left these days would be some of the PETA type animal rights people.

RE the mass killers, the fear, paranoia, and xenophobia that are standard talking points on the right are very attractive to people who already lost their marbles.  I'd say corelation and causation are up for debate on that one.

abiigdog: Are you high, Mcveigh's motive was revenge for Weaver and Waco and notably absent from your list are all the left wing whacko killings, is the L broken in google search for you?

Was that supposed to mean something? Because it's just word salad.

A non-reporter might go to jail for refusing to provide citations when asked for them.

/when can we get the Fark trolls tried for the same?

Rwa2play: skullkrusher: Rwa2play: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree.  This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement.  Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

As a matter of principle?  Yeah, we should.  Even though she works for a "news" organization that's really a puppet of the GOP, I wouldn't give them the damn satisfaction of crying victim by letting them twist in the wind.

They'll do it anyways because that's the way they work.

that's not why you should defend her. You really, really don't get it huh?
Shocking.

You mean the whole "freedom of the press" thingie?  I thought that was a given.

sure doesn't sound like it

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: This text is now purple: I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Going after a judge will negatively effect the stock price. Won't happen.

why would it do that? The ZOG? Illuminati connections of the judge? Trying to understand the mechanism here.

You think that judge doesn't have friends, especially if he has the "dirty laundry" you are positing? News organizations are not about news - they are about steady profits for the shareholders. That's why we see nothing about oil spills and the like and plenty of stories about Justin Bieber's monkey.

Investigative journalism is high risk with little reward - you will only see it when an ideological enemy can be targeted, and even then it can blow up in your face. Ask Dan Rather, who as it turns out, was correct about Shrub's military service.

scandal sells. Judge Dumdum calling whoever he might know is not going to impact News Corps shareprice. Getting a shiatton of page clicks, NY Post sells, etc because they're finding dead girls/live boys in his bed as a result of their vendetta against him to retaliate for violating a reporter's constitutional rights?  Yep, that's good for business.

I suck at trolling. Not even 100 replies. Main page and everything.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Still waiting for Cheney and Rove to face Treason charges over that incident.

theorellior: I suck at trolling. Not even 100 replies. Main page and everything.

if you want responses you gotta troll from the right.
So I hear.

skullkrusher: if you want responses you gotta troll from the right.

At least I got Just Another Spamming Toolbag to bite. Trolling trolls is pretty delicious.

Rwa2play: Maybe it's because the judge placed a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case to blab and it's clear she got her scoops from someone associated with the case?

Crazy talk and all but...

You should read up on colorado shield laws before looking like an idiot. She can't be put in jail unless it is critical to the trial. She did not violate the order. Knowing who leaked is not vital to the outcome of the trial.

taoistlumberjak: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Citation, please.

Study it out, the evidence is right there.
Just study it out.

You'd make one crappy lawyer and absolutely the last person I'd want to defend any point of view.

You: "I'm innocent your Honor and I have proof!"

Judge: "Really? Do you want to present it?"

You: "Nope. Google it."

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: This text is now purple: I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Going after a judge will negatively effect the stock price. Won't happen.

why would it do that? The ZOG? Illuminati connections of the judge? Trying to understand the mechanism here.

You think that judge doesn't have friends, especially if he has the "dirty laundry" you are positing? News organizations are not about news - they are about steady profits for the shareholders. That's why we see nothing about oil spills and the like and plenty of stories about Justin Bieber's monkey.

Investigative journalism is high risk with little reward - you will only see it when an ideological enemy can be targeted, and even then it can blow up in your face. Ask Dan Rather, who as it turns out, was correct about Shrub's military service.

I can tell you that the judge in this case is just a judge in the 18th judicial district.  He is not magical, nor is he a god.  You however, are a goddamned idiot.

... she's kinda cute?

CarnySaur: ... she's kinda cute?

I'd give her a gag order

It seems like this isn't in much of the news because it isn't very interesting. Reporters can be compelled to give up their sources. This reporter is being compelled and is willing to take the punishment for refusing. It's really more of a "dog bites man" kind of story.

Parthenogenetic: You've already forgotten about her "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling? ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

Wow...please tell me that was a joke or a troll.

MindStalker: This is why we have whistleblower protection laws (yes that are rarely followed). If you illegally obtain information and post it to the public, lets say I hacked someone's medical information and posted it online, that is breaking the law. You can't just claim that you are a reporter and suddenly its alright. Your actions need to serve the public good and there needs to be a reason you blew the whistle. This reporter has neither.

Some things I thought of from your response:

-Serving the public good is an arbitrary phrase.
-You don't think this reporter was serving the public good?
-If there is a case of illegally obtaining information, make the case and charge them for that act. If a window's broke, dust for fingerprints.  If you can't get any evidence, don't bring up a charge. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Mega Steve: Parthenogenetic: You've already forgotten about her "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling? ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

Wow...please tell me that was a joke or a troll.

our resident Jewish doctor used it first. Cat's out of the bag now

you have pee hands: There are lots of crazy people at way off both ends of the political spectrum.  The thing they all have in common is that they're farking crazy.

Well, that and also they tend to get re-elected.

theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Like Joseph Stalin?

skullkrusher: " Not as many people care about this as much as they ought to, which is one of the consequences of working for a nakedly partisan shiatshow masquerading as news outlet."

Perhaps if you're a child this is true.
No work on whether Gawker doesn't find Gawker to be a partisan shiatshow masquerading as a news outlet

Gawker and Fox are both shiatshows, but fox is the only one masquerading as journalism.  Everyone already knows that Gawker is not much more than a liberal blog trying really hard to wish they could masquerade as journalists.

However, if you aren't willing to admit that fox is pure bullshiat, then you sir are a fool without equal.

Rwa2play: Maybe it's because the judge placed a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case to blab and it's clear she got her scoops from someone associated with the case?

Crazy talk and all but...

Yes, whoever blabbed clearly deserves jail time for violating the gag order.  What does that have to do with this reporter?  I'm all for busting the people who blabbed.  I'm all for asking the reporter very nicely to reveal her sources.  But once you start forcing reporters to reveal their sources, then people stop telling things to reporters.  So then the public gets less information.

The first amendment exists for a very specific and extremely important reason.  This practice directly attacks and undermines that reason.

skullkrusher: No work on whether Gawker doesn't find Gawker to be a partisan shiatshow masquerading as a news outlet

Since when has Gawker ever pretended to be anything but a liberal blog/gossip site? Sites like Gawker aren't intended to be dispassionate purveyors of current events. Traditional networks like Fox who use "News" in their title are. It's why one of these things is worse than the other.

Kahabut: skullkrusher: " Not as many people care about this as much as they ought to, which is one of the consequences of working for a nakedly partisan shiatshow masquerading as news outlet."

Perhaps if you're a child this is true.
No work on whether Gawker doesn't find Gawker to be a partisan shiatshow masquerading as a news outlet

Gawker and Fox are both shiatshows, but fox is the only one masquerading as journalism.  Everyone already knows that Gawker is not much more than a liberal blog trying really hard to wish they could masquerade as journalists.

However, if you aren't willing to admit that fox is pure bullshiat, then you sir are a fool without equal.

true true

you have pee hands: There are lots of crazy people at way off both ends of the political spectrum.  The thing they all have in common is that they're farking crazy.

this.

A while back in Chicago, a judge (Joan Lefkow) came home to find her mother and husband  shot to death. She had previously attracted the ire of white supremacist leader (Matthew Hale). Popular opinion was that some white supremacist flunky had undertaken an assassination attempt on orders from Hale.

As it turned out, the real killer was a random electrician who was bankrupt and disfigured from jaw/head cancer, and he blamed the judge for not ruling favorably in his medical malpractice case. He was either already crazy, or the horrors of his life drove him mad. Bart Ross went to her home to kill her but since she wasn't there, ended up killing two family members instead, then later committed suicide.

I'm just sayin', sometimes killings are motivated by irrational madness, insanity that has little root in mainstream or even non-mainstream politics. And sometimes politics are just a convenient peg to hang one's crazy hat on.

Fox doesn't employ reporters, they employ propagandists. She's not a journalist, just a stooge who broke the law. Send her to prison and call it a good start.

Fox News is a propaganda outlet and none of their employees should be considered journalists.  This woman is nothing more than a corporate stooge who's breaking the law.  Send her to prison and call it a good start.

jbezorg: taoistlumberjak: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Citation, please.

Study it out, the evidence is right there.
Just study it out.

You'd make one crappy lawyer and absolutely the last person I'd want to defend any point of view.

You: "I'm innocent your Honor and I have proof!"

Judge: "Really? Do you want to present it?"

You: "Nope. Google it."

Welcome to fark.

Magorn: at some point the judge realizes that the reporter is never going to comply, at which point they have the option of converting the case into a criminal contempt prosecution

If that happens, does the reporter get a trial of some sort?  It seemed like "contempt of court" was the one crime that could get you imprisoned indefinitely (i.e., until you talk) without a trial, I was wondering if there was a time limit of if they had to let you call a lawyer eventually.

I see the insufferable gossip website Gawker is now analagous to the entire mainstream "liberal" media.

Dr Dreidel: Mega Steve: Parthenogenetic: You've already forgotten about her "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling? ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

Wow...please tell me that was a joke or a troll.

A response to my using it ironically.

// shiat, I hope it comes across as ironic

Mega Steve, you've never heard that before?  It's a fairly common term here in the Midwest, used to disparage the librul elite lamestream media.  Which, as we all know, is part of the "I bet the Jews did this" conspiracy.

taoistlumberjak: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Citation, please.

Study it out, the evidence is right there.
Just study it out.

LOL! Riiiiight.......

Can you spell cop-out?

You made a positive assertion. Burden of proof is on you.

Oh, wait, if you're a leftie, that's not the case.

physt: randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

<strawman.jpg>

I didn't want reporters thrown in jail for the Plame leak. I wanted Cheney thrown in jail for it.

Why Dick Cheney and not the person who outed her?   Or is that what you mean...."I was wrong"?  I confused...

Why is it supposed to be a liberal virtue or a special right for reporters to not reveal their sources? The way journalism is right now, I think more reporters should be forced to reveal their anonymous sources, for accountability.  Sometimes they're protecting genuine whistle blowers or heroes, but more often they're protecting criminals and liars. The virtuous ones can take a jailing and wear it as a badge. I said the same thing when the media was white-knighting the war-mongering liar Judy Miller. If the media are going to get special rights, they're going to have to do a hell of a lot better job serving the public interest than they have been to convince me it's worthwhile.

She can't work for Fox News.  She isn't hot.  That'd be like an A-cup working at Hooters.  Say what you will about Faux News, they do have standards.

JesusJuice: Fox News is a propaganda outlet and none of their employees should be considered journalists.  This woman is nothing more than a corporate stooge who's breaking the law.  Send her to prison and call it a good start.

It ain't good trollin' if you gotta post it twice.

3/10

Everyone shoud have the right to not testify.  Even people who don't work for a newspaper.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/04/09/tortured-for-testimony-anarchi st s-sent-t

Parthenogenetic: Mega Steve, you've never heard that before? It's a fairly common term here in the Midwest, used to disparage the librul elite lamestream media. Which, as we all know, is part of the "I bet the Jews did this" conspiracy.

My first time hearing it. Such things always crawl all over me, for some reason

IntertubeUser: She can't work for Fox News.  She isn't hot.  That'd be like an A-cup working at Hooters.  Say what you will about Faux News, they do have standards.

She works for the website.

Johnny_Whistle: JesusJuice: Fox News is a propaganda outlet and none of their employees should be considered journalists.  This woman is nothing more than a corporate stooge who's breaking the law.  Send her to prison and call it a good start.

It ain't good trollin' if you gotta post it twice.

3/10

Yeah...  My computer was wonky and I didn't think it went through the 1st time.  Sorry for the disappointment.

abiigdog: skozlaw: Prank Monkey: [citation needed]

The guy who shot three cops dead in Pittsburgh because they were "coming to take his guns" had numerous right-wing screeds in his possession by such notable idiots as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Jared Lee Loughner, though fundamentally more insane than anything else, was clearly ininfluenced by a number of what are traditionally right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.

Jim David Adkisson explicitly went out looking to "kill liberals, African-Americans, homosexuals" and made a kill list based off of Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who are Screwing Up America".

Timothy McVeigh was a far right anti-government lunatic.

Wade Michael Page was a white supremacist.

I don't know if I'd say somethign as specific as mass killers are usually republicans, but there's a pretty clear correlation between conservative ideology (and especially far-right ideology) and violence against people. Crazy-ass left-wingers seem to be more intent with burning down property and smashing windows. Crazy-ass right-wingers seem to have an unfortunate tendency to prefer shooting people or blowing them up.

It's almost like when you have multiple fat farks on TV and radio all day long vilifying people they disagree with as subhuman and blaming all of the world's ills on those people that some of the less stable viewers and listeners might not react in the most level-headed and responsible way.

If only there were a historical precedent for that type of propaganda and its eventual outcomes that we could learn from....

Are you high, Mcveigh's motive was revenge for Weaver and Waco and notably absent from your list are all the left wing whacko killings, is the L broken in google search for you?

Up to you dog to provide that list.  He showed his cards, you show yours, or you walk and your money stays.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: taoistlumberjak: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Citation, please.

Study it out, the evidence is right there.
Just study it out.

LOL! Riiiiight.......

Can you spell cop-out?

You made a positive assertion. Burden of proof is on you.

Oh, wait, if you're a leftie, that's not the case.

Sigh...
https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=2E87gciwebw

I can't believe I have to do your homework for you people.

I find it amusing that Farkers are determining whether a reporter should be protected for revealing the truth about a situation based on where they work.  Its hard to get a paying gig in reporting, there are a lot of reporters that would happily accept working for FoxNews if it meant a steady, paying job.  So just because a news organization's slant on news doesn't go your way, the reporter gets what "they deserve" for working there?

Yes, this is Fark.  But if you are truly a liberal, your beef wouldn't be with Fox News, especially in this instance.

taoistlumberjak: jbezorg: taoistlumberjak: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Citation, please.

Study it out, the evidence is right there.
Just study it out.

You'd make one crappy lawyer and absolutely the last person I'd want to defend any point of view.

You: "I'm innocent your Honor and I have proof!"

Judge: "Really? Do you want to present it?"

You: "Nope. Google it."

Welcome to fark.

Meh....

I know it's like going through a junk pile and separating out the excessively useless bits.