If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Trib)   Bloggers are not protected by journalist shield laws; so when a judge orders you to reveal your sources for a story, you better comply   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 94
    More: Interesting, shield laws, gag orders, first-degree murders, Drew Peterson, jury pool, fair trial, information need  
•       •       •

6243 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Sep 2013 at 6:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-02 06:57:29 AM
That sucks.
 
2013-09-02 07:00:16 AM
The idea that the government can determine who is or isn't a journalist violates the 1st amendment
 
2013-09-02 07:03:44 AM
Nevermind the constitutionality of gag orders in the first place
 
2013-09-02 07:09:15 AM

Warlordtrooper: The idea that the government can determine who is or isn't a journalist violates the 1st amendment


That doesn't appear to be what the article says.  I still disagree with the judge, but he's not saying "It's just a blog, you're not a real journalist."
 
2013-09-02 07:12:39 AM
That's odd. When that pesky first amendment was written there were no corporate news entities. Any free man with an idea could produce news.

Glad to see corporations gain even more power over the individual.
 
2013-09-02 07:14:39 AM

gfid: Warlordtrooper: The idea that the government can determine who is or isn't a journalist violates the 1st amendment

That doesn't appear to be what the article says.  I still disagree with the judge, but he's not saying "It's just a blog, you're not a real journalist."


True but this is Fark so naturally Weeners then read the article :)
 
2013-09-02 07:18:13 AM

Warlordtrooper: The idea that the government can determine who is or isn't a journalist violates the 1st amendment




When the constitution was written all assemblies were done in person and journalism only took place with pen and paper. Ludicrous as it might sound, there are people who will apply that as an argument to abuse or regulate any new technology.

The printing press is on its way to extinction, which makes this a pivotal point in history where the existing powers can shed any hint that they ever respected constitutional law.
 
2013-09-02 07:19:29 AM

Warlordtrooper: gfid: Warlordtrooper: The idea that the government can determine who is or isn't a journalist violates the 1st amendment

That doesn't appear to be what the article says.  I still disagree with the judge, but he's not saying "It's just a blog, you're not a real journalist."

True but this is Fark so naturally Weeners then read the article :)


naturally
 
2013-09-02 07:19:35 AM
Fark the judge.
I didn't write that.

/Attention whores take note: Never use the internet under your own name.
 
2013-09-02 07:20:21 AM
I haven't been awake that long, and I'm not much of a caffeine person, so it could be my reading comprehension... but that article seems to be missing something kinda important: the judge's rationale for _why_ he thinks shield laws don't apply in this instance. "Because reasons" isn't very compelling.
 
2013-09-02 07:21:52 AM
Can someone point out where the article states that blogs/bloggers don't have the same protection as journalists? I read it twice and nothing even close to that is mentioned.

What the article does say is; "state law requires a court to find there is no way to get the information needed to protect the public interest other than to force the reporter to reveal his or her source" No mention of blogs/bloggers, just reporters.
 
2013-09-02 07:25:46 AM
so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.
 
2013-09-02 07:26:12 AM

ReapTheChaos: Can someone point out where the article states that blogs/bloggers don't have the same protection as journalists? I read it twice and nothing even close to that is mentioned.

What the article does say is; "state law requires a court to find there is no way to get the information needed to protect the public interest other than to force the reporter to reveal his or her source" No mention of blogs/bloggers, just reporters.


Blogs are the Rodney Dangerfield of the news industry.
 
2013-09-02 07:31:50 AM

cynicalminion: so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.


From my reading the article, I got the impression this wasn't some random person posting on their blog, it was a staff journalist for a local news website owned and operated by AOL
 
2013-09-02 07:32:58 AM
The reporter always has the option of refusing to comply, and going to jail.  Sometimes, you have to put your foot down and say "No, this is wrong, and I WILL NOT do it."  It's surprising how often it causes the jerkwads to back off, especially when it turns the person being held for contempt into a cause celebre.
 
2013-09-02 07:40:01 AM

cynicalminion: so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.


No.

The judge placed a gag order on material in the case to prevent its dissemination.  Someone gave some of this information to a reporter who published it.  The Judge ordered everyone involved, police officers, attorneys, etc. to file affidavits attesting to the fact that they did not leak the information that was subject to the gag order.  Then the Judge ordered the reporter to give up his notes and source(s) in order to determine who defied his gag order, and presumably lied in their affidavit.

Based solely on the information in the article, the Judge's order appears run counter to precedent as it is really just a witch hunt to find out who blabbed and defied the Judge's order and then lied about it and has nothing to do with the stated public good.

/Troll-mitter's headline is either about some other article or is just an attempt to show off the value in getting your GED in Law.
 
2013-09-02 07:43:09 AM

IAAl: cynicalminion: so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.

No.

The judge placed a gag order on material in the case to prevent its dissemination.  Someone gave some of this information to a reporter who published it.  The Judge ordered everyone involved, police officers, attorneys, etc. to file affidavits attesting to the fact that they did not leak the information that was subject to the gag order.  Then the Judge ordered the reporter to give up his notes and source(s) in order to determine who defied his gag order, and presumably lied in their affidavit.

Based solely on the information in the article, the Judge's order appears run counter to precedent as it is really just a witch hunt to find out who blabbed and defied the Judge's order and then lied about it and has nothing to do with the stated public good.

/Troll-mitter's headline is either about some other article or is just an attempt to show off the value in getting your GED in Law.


FTFA: The judge's order stems from a motion by attorneys for the four people charged in the slayings for a gag order in the case that was filed after Hosey's articles were published on patch.com

If I read this correctly, the article in question was posted prior to the gag order was issued, because the gag order was issued after the defense attourneys complained about the article in question.

Which makes this even more hinkey
 
2013-09-02 07:45:01 AM

Jorn the Younger: cynicalminion: so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.

From my reading the article, I got the impression this wasn't some random person posting on their blog, it was a staff journalist for a local news website owned and operated by AOL


same difference.  it doesn't go through an editor and get approved for print or tv...  you just post it online, and by the time anyone says "you're breaching confidences here, that's wrong" it's been reblogged everywhere.

/media hype
 
2013-09-02 07:48:05 AM

cynicalminion: Jorn the Younger: cynicalminion: so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.

From my reading the article, I got the impression this wasn't some random person posting on their blog, it was a staff journalist for a local news website owned and operated by AOL

same difference.  it doesn't go through an editor and get approved for print or tv...  you just post it online, and by the time anyone says "you're breaching confidences here, that's wrong" it's been reblogged everywhere.

/media hype


You think online news sites don't have editors?

Are you trolling?
 
2013-09-02 07:53:28 AM

IAAl: cynicalminion: so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.

No.

The judge placed a gag order on material in the case to prevent its dissemination.  Someone gave some of this information to a reporter who published it.  The Judge ordered everyone involved, police officers, attorneys, etc. to file affidavits attesting to the fact that they did not leak the information that was subject to the gag order.  Then the Judge ordered the reporter to give up his notes and source(s) in order to determine who defied his gag order, and presumably lied in their affidavit.

Based solely on the information in the article, the Judge's order appears run counter to precedent as it is really just a witch hunt to find out who blabbed and defied the Judge's order and then lied about it and has nothing to do with the stated public good.

/Troll-mitter's headline is either about some other article or is just an attempt to show off the value in getting your GED in Law.


ok, so i have no intention of getting a GED in law, but how is this hard?  if the judge says DON'T TALK ABOUT THIS, and someone does, that suddenly becomes something along the lines of "contempt of court", yeah?  so where's the problem?  the journalist says "hey, i got this info from X" court tells X: "you're in contempt"

i think the major problem with this is it's coming out of a criminal proceeding...  "an unnamed source gave us pictures of someone licking taco shells at taco bell" is different than this...
 
2013-09-02 07:54:25 AM

Jorn the Younger: cynicalminion: Jorn the Younger: cynicalminion: so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.

From my reading the article, I got the impression this wasn't some random person posting on their blog, it was a staff journalist for a local news website owned and operated by AOL

same difference.  it doesn't go through an editor and get approved for print or tv...  you just post it online, and by the time anyone says "you're breaching confidences here, that's wrong" it's been reblogged everywhere.

/media hype

You think online news sites don't have editors?

Are you trolling?


daily fail certainly doesn't...
 
2013-09-02 08:03:42 AM
Are you trolling?

sorry, no, i'm actually not...  but i have a hard time wrapping my head around a situation involving seriously messed up shiat NOT automatically falling under the "no comment" banner.

just go home, have a beer, and forget that YOU know what happened.

sensationalism beats journalism, i guess.
 
2013-09-02 08:10:27 AM
 
2013-09-02 08:27:25 AM
Truly, it's against the one, two, three, four? people?

Can someone put a cap on the amount of racism per crime?
 
2013-09-02 08:28:28 AM
Shield laws should not exist in the first place. Journalists are not a special class of citizen with more rights.  Either everyone gets the protection of shield laws regardless of what they do (which is a silly idea) or no one should get them.
 
2013-09-02 08:31:54 AM

cynicalminion: Are you trolling?

sorry, no, i'm actually not...  but i have a hard time wrapping my head around a situation involving seriously messed up shiat NOT automatically falling under the "no comment" banner.

just go home, have a beer, and forget that YOU know what happened.

sensationalism beats journalism, i guess.


While I would certainly agree that grisley details of ongoing investigations and pending trials shouldn't necessarily be made public, you seem to be viewing the situation as "Someone posts something on their shiatty blog because they don't think it should be secret" whereas I'm looking at it as "Journalist for mainstream local news website publishes article prompting judge to issue a gag order, then orders journalist to reveal their sources"
 
2013-09-02 08:32:18 AM

gfid: The "blog" was posted in 4 parts and apparently patch.com sucks at linking to separate parts, but here's the links

http://joliet.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/accused-killers-in- ra nkin-glover-murders-confessed-toe3cfdb5e2f
http://joliet.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/from-rape-to-robber y- accused-hickory-street-killers-c95aa9c2e53
I can't find Part 3
http://joliet.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/accused-killer-in-r an kins-glover-murders-wanted-to-kedbb61fe26a

The accused seem like real geniuses.


Thugs 4 lyfe, amirite? Seems like a pretty classic "Justice for Trayvon" incident that we see all to commonly these days from those people. Taking advantage of the system to get away with their sickening hate. No excuses, no skittles, no more lying down. Zimmerman was right.
 
2013-09-02 08:33:18 AM

gfid: The "blog" was posted in 4 parts and apparently patch.com sucks at linking to separate parts, but here's the links

http://joliet.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/accused-killers-in- ra nkin-glover-murders-confessed-toe3cfdb5e2f
http://joliet.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/from-rape-to-robber y- accused-hickory-street-killers-c95aa9c2e53
I can't find Part 3
http://joliet.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/accused-killer-in-r an kins-glover-murders-wanted-to-kedbb61fe26a

The accused seem like real geniuses.


and the "blog" hit tabloid-land with the title on the first link.
 
2013-09-02 08:34:19 AM

Warlordtrooper: gfid: Warlordtrooper: The idea that the government can determine who is or isn't a journalist violates the 1st amendment

That doesn't appear to be what the article says.  I still disagree with the judge, but he's not saying "It's just a blog, you're not a real journalist."

True but this is Fark so naturally Weeners then read the article :)




Speek for yurself buddy.
 
2013-09-02 08:36:07 AM

Jorn the Younger: cynicalminion: Are you trolling?

sorry, no, i'm actually not...  but i have a hard time wrapping my head around a situation involving seriously messed up shiat NOT automatically falling under the "no comment" banner.

just go home, have a beer, and forget that YOU know what happened.

sensationalism beats journalism, i guess.

While I would certainly agree that grisley details of ongoing investigations and pending trials shouldn't necessarily be made public, you seem to be viewing the situation as "Someone posts something on their shiatty blog because they don't think it should be secret" whereas I'm looking at it as "Journalist for mainstream local news website publishes article prompting judge to issue a gag order, then orders journalist to reveal their sources"


true, that's not particularly fair, but "journalist for mainstream local news website loses job" should be in the headlines soon either way.
 
2013-09-02 08:47:15 AM
Reads like the judge is seeking to uncover a leak from Grand Jury proceedings.

Here's a guy who befriends leakers. And a story about killers having not-gay sex on the dead body and taking souvenirs he finds titillating. Just hope the journalist doesn't write anything bad about his new host.

topnews.in
 
2013-09-02 08:55:24 AM

incrdbil: Shield laws should not exist in the first place. Journalists are not a special class of citizen with more rights.  Either everyone gets the protection of shield laws regardless of what they do (which is a silly idea) or no one should get them.


People who play in the fields of the lord should understand the ramifications of that play.
 
2013-09-02 09:02:13 AM
"Congress shall make no law ..."

That includes protection laws.

They "made" a law.

Unconstitutional .
 
2013-09-02 09:19:37 AM

MyRandomName: When that pesky first amendment was written there were no corporate news entities


lolwut

Wait, let me guess, you think the printing press is a modern invention.
 
2013-09-02 09:20:21 AM
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but the judge didn't restrain the "journalist" from publishing, did they?
 
2013-09-02 09:29:13 AM

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: When that pesky first amendment was written there were no corporate news entities

lolwut

Wait, let me guess, you think the printing press is a modern invention.


no, operative word in that sentence was "corporate"
 
2013-09-02 09:32:01 AM

cynicalminion: and the "blog" hit tabloid-land with the title on the first link.


So who decides what "real" journalism is?

There is no government agency licensing news outlets, nor should there be.  There are good journalists and crappy ones.
In a sense we are all journalists.  We don't have to be employed by a respected news agency or even publish anything.
 
2013-09-02 09:34:28 AM

brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Can someone point out where the article states that blogs/bloggers don't have the same protection as journalists? I read it twice and nothing even close to that is mentioned.

What the article does say is; "state law requires a court to find there is no way to get the information needed to protect the public interest other than to force the reporter to reveal his or her source" No mention of blogs/bloggers, just reporters.

Blogs are the Rodney Dangerfield of the news industry.


They're fat, sweaty, alcoholic comedians?
 
2013-09-02 09:34:48 AM

Jorn the Younger: cynicalminion: Jorn the Younger: cynicalminion: so, after reading the article, what i'm getting from this is this:  someone deliberately posted comments and or testimony that they should never have had access to in the first place.  court system wants to know where they got it so breach of confidence charges can be filed...  that's fine.  if you're really a journalist, you abide by a certain code of ethics.  using a blog as a way of getting something on the internet (because you know it's out there somewhere even if your site goes down) is not journalism.  go through the person who paid you for the story and their editors?  fine.  if they print it, without asking where you got your info, you're no longer the AW.

From my reading the article, I got the impression this wasn't some random person posting on their blog, it was a staff journalist for a local news website owned and operated by AOL

same difference.  it doesn't go through an editor and get approved for print or tv...  you just post it online, and by the time anyone says "you're breaching confidences here, that's wrong" it's been reblogged everywhere.

/media hype

You think online news sites don't have editors?

Are you trolling?


Are you new to the internet?  Because it's a routine thing for someone on Fark to comment on how poorly written a particular article is.
 
2013-09-02 09:36:11 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but the judge didn't restrain the "journalist" from publishing, did they?


I'm curious as to why I couldn't find the 3rd part of the series in question.

Maybe patch.com is so poorly run that they lost that part.
Maybe they never published part 3 at all.
Maybe they pulled it of their own accord.
Maybe they pulled it due to pressure.
Maybe they pulled it due to court order.
Maybe it's out there still, but I couldn't find it.
 
2013-09-02 09:37:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but the judge didn't restrain the "journalist" from publishing, did they?


No, the judge just wants the source of the leak.  It sounds like one of those cases, for the interest of justice the defense asked for a gag order so as to not taint potential jurors before trial.  The reporter simply needs to give over the source and can walk away.  The source is the person who needs to worry.  Defying a judge's order is a fast way of seeing the inside of a jail cell, no matter how minor anyone may think it is.  Judges appear to be power tripping dicks, but that is what the job calls for.  Telling someone not to do something because of the law, you have to follow through when they ignore the order.

/The whole argument over gag orders and journalists being forced to turn over sources is older than I.
 
2013-09-02 09:46:36 AM

cynicalminion: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: When that pesky first amendment was written there were no corporate news entities

lolwut

Wait, let me guess, you think the printing press is a modern invention.

no, operative word in that sentence was "corporate"


There were corporations in 1783.
 
2013-09-02 09:48:55 AM
It's really funny to me how people think that the 1700s were some puritanical era where big business and modern inventions like glasses didn't exist.
 
2013-09-02 09:49:32 AM
gfid:So who decides what "real" journalism is?

There is no government agency licensing news outlets, nor should there be.  There are good journalists and crappy ones.
In a sense we are all journalists.  We don't have to be employed by a respected news agency or even publish anything.


then you're just a blogger, and a member of the populace, and not entitled to any journalist privileges.  post whatever you want.  and if you post something that is under any sort of non-disclosure/gag-order/etc, be prepared for the court to order you to tell them where you got it.
 
2013-09-02 09:54:12 AM

cameroncrazy1984: cynicalminion: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: When that pesky first amendment was written there were no corporate news entities

lolwut

Wait, let me guess, you think the printing press is a modern invention.

no, operative word in that sentence was "corporate"

There were corporations in 1783.


and how many of them were blogging their daily newsrag?
 
2013-09-02 09:56:38 AM

cynicalminion: cameroncrazy1984: cynicalminion: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: When that pesky first amendment was written there were no corporate news entities

lolwut

Wait, let me guess, you think the printing press is a modern invention.

no, operative word in that sentence was "corporate"

There were corporations in 1783.

and how many of them were blogging their daily newsrag?


That wasn't the argument. The argument was that corporate press entities did not exist at the time of the Constitution, which is laughable.
 
2013-09-02 10:00:55 AM

cynicalminion: gfid:So who decides what "real" journalism is?

There is no government agency licensing news outlets, nor should there be.  There are good journalists and crappy ones.
In a sense we are all journalists.  We don't have to be employed by a respected news agency or even publish anything.

then you're just a blogger, and a member of the populace, and not entitled to any journalist privileges.  post whatever you want.  and if you post something that is under any sort of non-disclosure/gag-order/etc, be prepared for the court to order you to tell them where you got it.


Okay then....At what point do I become more than just a "blogger" and graduate to "journalist"?

Do I have to be paid by a 3rd party?  Does the 3rd party have to be recognized by someone or a lot of someones before it's journalism?
Can't one be an independent journalist?
Do I have to have a degree in journalism?
If I incorporate legally and somehow publish something sophisticated looking either in print, on video or electronically is that enough?

Please do tell.  The differences seems quite vague.
 
2013-09-02 10:05:52 AM
whoever put this up certainly weren't around then.  and i still stick with the point of journalistic integrity.  if you're covering a case that's been gag-ordered (for whatever reasons) and you go ahead and blog a bunch of stuff you should not have been privy to, then YEAH, they're going to want to know who talked.
 
2013-09-02 10:13:21 AM

gfid: cynicalminion: gfid:So who decides what "real" journalism is?

There is no government agency licensing news outlets, nor should there be.  There are good journalists and crappy ones.
In a sense we are all journalists.  We don't have to be employed by a respected news agency or even publish anything.

then you're just a blogger, and a member of the populace, and not entitled to any journalist privileges.  post whatever you want.  and if you post something that is under any sort of non-disclosure/gag-order/etc, be prepared for the court to order you to tell them where you got it.

Okay then....At what point do I become more than just a "blogger" and graduate to "journalist"?

Do I have to be paid by a 3rd party?  Does the 3rd party have to be recognized by someone or a lot of someones before it's journalism?
Can't one be an independent journalist?
Do I have to have a degree in journalism?
If I incorporate legally and somehow publish something sophisticated looking either in print, on video or electronically is that enough?

Please do tell.  The differences seems quite vague.


your "blog" is not a news source.  look at most of the links on here.  links that go to (some guy) go to a blog.  that's just someone putting stuff on the net.  hell, like i said, daily fail shouldn't always be trusted.

it just seems like there's too much whaargarbl in this...  really squicky shiat happened, and got splattered everywhere... so i guess the real question might be, "why did we need to know?" and "why is the judge wrong for trying to find the weakest link?"
 
2013-09-02 10:14:58 AM
The whole situation is a cluster...

1. Blogs are the true "poor man's press."  They can reach huge numbers of readers with minimal costs.  They deserve the same protection as more traditional news sources.

2. Some major news sources are nothing more than blogs that have decent writers working for them.  For example, in Chattanooga, TN, The Chattanoogan has better court case reporting than the other print and television news media.  It also has much better coverage of city council meetings, and for some reasons, house fires. It took a long time to grow into its current form.

3. Forcing people to sign affidavits would seem to violate a person's right against self incrimination, especially when there is no probable cause to a specific person.

4. Gag orders are sometimes necessary for the administration of justice.  False leaks happen all the time, most often they are made by members of law enforcement or the district attorney's office.  Gag orders should be carefully written to be as limited as possible.  They shouldn't prevent all reporting on the case, they should only limit those close to it from providing information which might adversely affect the accused's right to a fair trail.  After the trail concludes the order expires and everyone can talk to the media.  A carefully drafted gag order is a proper "time, manner, place" restriction.

5. When a gag order is inappropriate, or when too much information has already been reported or leaked, the appropriate thing for the judge to do is order a change of venue.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report