Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Judge: Freedom of the Press for Commercial Use Only 79

Posted by Hemos from the bad-precedent dept.
Kilroy writes "According to a Seattle judge freedom of the press only applies to paid journalists. As a result, he has indefinantly imprisoned a 70 year old former journalism professor for posting mean things on the web. I wonder how much something has to earn in order to make it legal to publish?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge: Freedom of the Press for Commercial Use Only More

Judge: Freedom of the Press for Commercial Use Only

Comments Filter:
  • What will this mean for Indymedia [indymedia.com]? I think this ruling will be quickly struck down. I hope.
  • It's a good thing we have Slashdot to point us to reliable articles hosted on some guy's blog. How else would we find them among the 99.98% of blogs that post complete crap?
  • Disclaimers - I'm not american and the article is /.ed already.

    I thought the supreme court [cornell.edu] was the only one allowed to rule on constitutional matters? Isn't this Seattle judge going to get smacked for ruling outside his jurisdiction?
    • No, the Supreme Court has final jurisdiction, but every court issues rulings on Constitutional matters. Generally the Supreme Court only steps in when an appeals court gets it wrong.
      • Generally the Supreme Court only steps in when an appeals court gets it wrong.

        Or when two appeals courts interpret the Constitution differently...
        Or if they just decide they like a petition that they received.
    • I'm also not an american :)

      I suspect what you'd find is that any judge can probably make a ruling on how he or she sees the constitution to apply, but the ruling is only as valid as a higher court allows it to be. I think however that (it's generally the case in Australia and its a semi simmilar legal system) only the highest courts (In Aust the High court, and in US the Supreme court) can actually beat up a law or whatever based on the constitutional gig.
  • Somehow I'm suspecting that this is a ploy to promote this guy's weblog. Has there been any fact-checking done on this? Phone calls? News sources other than a cheap (free?) Blogger hosting service?

  • Another story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @11:38AM (#3523954) Journal
    Here [infoanarchy.org]'s the public domain version of the story, for those of you who want true freedom. I still haven't figured out why freedom of speech doesn't apply in this case. Maybe because he wasn't "talking"?
  • The first thing I thought when I looked at this weblog was "man, it sure looks like the Crazy Apple Rumors [crazyapplerumors.com] website.

    mark
  • So if he had placed at least one banner ad on the website it would have been a commercial operation?
  • ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
    While the freedom of the press is outlined as a separate freedom from speech in the constitution. I would think that the same freedom would apply to both. My theory as to why they are separate freedoms is because someone may try to limit the freedom of the press in a way that would not necessarily limit freedom of speech.
    Can anyone add anything to clarify this?

    Interesting link:
    http://www.exordia.net/pi/fotp.html [exordia.net]

    • Actually, he's pretty clever (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Freedom of the press allows journalists to keep their sources of information confidential, with certain obvious limitations (if you know the whereabouts of fugitive, or some thing, you have to tell). And this, I believe, is what's at issue.

      Mr. Trummel published accusations of criminal misconduct against a government agency (HUD) and refused to divulge the source of his information. Therefore his accusations are unsubstantiated, and would be considered libel. Further more his refusal to remove the libelous material from his Web site might make the "Contempt of Court" charge valid.

      Of course the problem with the libel argument is that it is only valid if the author knows , or reasonably should know, the accusations to be untrue. Since this guy is 70 years old, the judge would have to consider the possibility that he's just senile.

      The other, and most disturbing problem, is that the accusations are probably true. As a Washington State resident, I can tell you that the government more corrupt than ours (inside the US) is the other Washington. This is evident in tha the judge has ordered Mr. Trummel imprisoned until he remove the offending content from his Web site, which he cannot do until he is released. The reason that this is a clever tactic is that washington state inmates pay rent. Combine this with the fact that he is being fined $100 for every day the content remains online, that it will probably take about 6 months to get the ruling overturned, and Mr. Trummel can't afford a decent lawyer, and you realize there's the potential to make up for some lost revenue (we recently passed an initiative prohibiting the State from increasing property tax without voter consent, and the legislature is trying to claim that was unconstitutional)

      God Bless America!

  • Its happened before.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bofkentucky ( 555107 ) <bofkentucky@gmail . c om> on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @12:10PM (#3524193) Homepage Journal
    For the last 70 years the 2nd ammendment has been interpreted to apply to "professional" armies or militias, as opposed to every citizen of these United States. The only difference is the "highly regarded ACLU" will stand up to fight this as opposed to "a bunch of right wing gun nuts" in the case of the second ammendment.
    • True, true.

      For all these years, people who have been opponents of gun control kept yelling and screaming that when you take away one right, the others are right behind.

      I guess we were right.

    • The only difference is the "highly regarded ACLU" will stand up to fight this as opposed to "a bunch of right wing gun nuts" in the case of the second ammendment.

      That and the darn phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state." This case has a lot more to do with the 14th ammendment than the first.

    • It's much more complex than that. IIRC, since the end of WW2 the definition of "militia" under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (I think) was "able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45," basically everyone who was subject to being drafted.

      Call me crazy, but I think the UCMJ (which covers all active duty and reserve military personnel) might just have a better idea about what a "well-regulated militia" needs than parttime state legislators and people with an axe to grind (on both sides).

      The bottom line is that there's never been a real consensus on this issue, not if you look beyond the facile arguments.
      • Actually that made me realize... "Militia" is by definition an army which is not professional. In fact, dictionary.com uses the definition "1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers." So the whole 2nd ammendment issue is certainly not the same as the issue in this case.
    • The only difference is the "highly regarded ACLU" will stand up to fight this as opposed to "a bunch of right wing gun nuts" in the case of the second ammendment.

      Not the only difference. The other key difference is free speech, in the hands of everyone will do less damage than a tool designed to take lives in the hands of everyone. Whatever your views are on gun-control/gun-rights, I think everyone can agree that there are at least a few people who shouldn't have guns because it puts us all at risk (think: drive-by, innocents caught in cross-fire). Words can't be misused in a way to truly hurt someone, but a gun pointed and fired by an irresponsible individual will most likely terminate a life.

      Again, no matter your stance on the gun-laws (I still have no formal stance), I hope people can see the difference between a weapon and a word. Guns, by design, are meant to kill or cause injury...that's their purpose. Speech is meant to exchange thoughts and ideas...that's its purpose. Worst case scenario with free speech: people will squander it.

      • The mentally ill and violent criminal elements of society shouldn't have access to weapons of any sort, but law abiding citizens do have a right to bear arms afforded to them by the US Constitution, which has been unduly restricted Post WWII
  • It's interesting that recently, the Federal Department of Justice has been filing briefs [saf.org] saying that the Second Ammendment protection of the right to bear arms is not merely a collective right, but an individual right.

    The Bill of Rights was drafted to list the rights of individuals that the majority can't take away from them. If even Federal Judges can't see this, we're in big trouble.

    • A friend of mine came up with the Bill of Rights: Security Edition [securityedition.com]. The Bill of rights printed on a pocket sized sheet metal card that won't get through airport security. So you give up your rights as you pass through... The right against unreasonable search and seizure is printed in red...
      • Being searched at airport security is not unreasonable, because you choose to be there and may choose to not fly if you object to the searches. Also, you have ample warning that you will be searched, and they search everyone, they don't discriminate.

        Now, if they set up road blocks and searched anyone walking or driving down the street, that's unreasonable, as courts have found many, many times.

        • Last year, while driving through the city of West Covina (outside Los Angeles, CA) I had to wait in a long line of stopped cars. Cones prevented you from turning off the road, turning around, or backing up.

          After about a 15 minute delay, I finally got to the front of the line where 3 parked polices cars stopped traffic until you were allowed to pass. I had to show my drivers license and vehicle registration to the officer.

          Now, this must have been something serious, right? Manhunt for a convicted criminal, etc? No. They were simply stopping EVERY car on the street, without cause.

          Now I know that I am required by law to surrender my drivers license to a police officer who asks for it - but this was certainly not just cause. When I pointed that out to the officer, he made it quite clear that I was going nowhere unless I presented the required documents.

          So my point is that 'THEY' do set up road blocks to people just driving down the street. I was royally PO'd, and even more surprised that it didn't even make the nightly news.

  • not so crazy? (Score:2, Troll)

    by tps12 ( 105590 )
    I know my initial reaction to this, along with that of all the other slashbots, was pure horror. "The Constitution!" I cried, "What about the Constitution?!?"

    But I've been thinking since then, and I have a new perspective. When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, it was 1776. That was a while ago. Needless to say, desktop publishing was not a reality. In fact, publishing was very expensive, prohibitively so for the majority of Americans. The Founding Fathers thought that it would be acceptible to have a free press exactly because "not just anyone" could publish!

    In today's world of computers and Britney Spears, anyone can publish. Therefore, the rules need to change. The controls that used to be built-in in the form of costs must now be moved into the legal realm.

    Jefferson would want it this way.
    • jefferson wanted the rewrite the whole document every couple of years.
    • I agree. We need to change the constitution. The people (not the government) should decide what they want it to say, and say it. It should be interpretable by anyone fluent in English, not just lawyers and politicians. Unfortunately, the Constitution is seen as sacred, even if it lends to being misinterpreted. My prediction: its going to keep getting worse until we are no longer even a pretend democracy and the people revolt, but US citizens are apathetic so it won't be for quite some time.

      IANAP (I am not a patriot. Rational thinking should not be trumped by pride in a country's past)
      • Actually, the Constitution [usconstitution.net] is written fairly clearly, and can pretty much be understood by anyone fluent in English (with the possible exception of some of the later Amendments, which were written in legalese).

        The problem is that Congress (and some Judges) are so fluent in legalese, that they have trouble understanding English.

        What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do they have a problem understanding?

    • One small problem (Score:3, Interesting)

      by coyote-san ( 38515 )
      There's one small problem with your argument, something the authors of the Constitution were well aware of and very clear about.

      Who would decide what's the "legitimate press?" Why, the very government that's being challenged by the "illegitimate press" unprotected by a restricted First Amendment.

      This is an intolerable conflict of interest. Some individuals may be able to avoid the temptation to suppress critical speech, but they are rare (look at the petty power exercised by most HS principals over their student newspapers) and the net result would be a huge chilling effect on every publisher.

      That's why "Freedom of Press" and "Freedom of Speech" have historically covered *any* speech, oral or written, except for those items where there's specific harm caused by that speech. (E.g., slander and libel, respectively, or reasonable "time, manner and place" restrictions intended to balance First Amendment rights with other's right of peaceful enjoyment of their property and public spaces.) It doesn't matter if you have a publication in the millions, or an audience of one.

    • Re:not so crazy? (Score:3, Informative)

      by medcalf ( 68293 )

      OK, please go read (I would say re-read, but most Americans have for some reason not read them) the Federalist papers. Madison, Hamilton and Jay lay out the reasoning for the Constitution very well, and I'm certain that your take on this is quite off.

      For example, in Federalist 84, Hamilton writes concerning the (lack of any) necessity of the Bill of Rights:

      I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

      It is clear that Hamilton wanted no government decisions on what constitutes "the press" or what freedoms it should have. Instead, the power to regulate the press in any way was simply withheld from the govnernment. Indeed, throughout the Constitution there is a presumption that all rights and duties are the part of the people or of the States (and this is expressed directly, in fact, in the Constitution, although that particular amendment is generally ignored). Only expressly granted rights and duties accrue to the government.

      • Well, it's pretty obvious that this isn't the course the US has taken. The Federalist papers were newspaper articles, not law, and the views of some of the framers of the Constitution have not always been followed as interpretation.

        Ironically, Madison, the author of most of the Federalist papers, was one of the prime movers behind the Bill of Rights, even though he ascribed to the above. Conversely, Hamilton was one of the prime movers behind the "necessary and proper" expansion that has led us to our current big government - the exact oposite of what he argues above. Where was the authority for the Bank of America? (Or the Louisiana purchase, authorized by Jefferson, one of the strongest proponents of the above.)

        You can argue that we should govern as described in F.P. 84, but I don't think you can argue that we do.

    • Re:not so crazy? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darby ( 84953 )
      The Founding Fathers thought that it would be acceptible to have a free press exactly because "not just anyone" could publish!

      They also thought only men should vote, blacks should only count as 3/5 of a person and several other things which we the people have decided are crap. This falls into the exact same category. Things the founding fathers believed in, but really only for elite groups. We no longer believe that only elite groups should have these things.

      There may need to be changes, but this is certainly *not* one of them Bucko.

    • > In today's world of computers and Britney Spears, anyone can publish. Therefore, the rules need to change.

      If Britney Spears can't publish with changed rules, how am I going to find out about semiconductor physics?

      http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

  • My reply. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Talonius ( 97106 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @12:41PM (#3524478)
    Judge's Email: james.doerty@metrokc.gov
    Reliable Link: http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0212/news-an derson.shtml

    Dear Sir:

    I find your recent ruling and jailing of Mr. Paul Trummel to be misinformed and malicious to the extent that you cannot possibly be serving the interest of the public at large in your position. The freedom of speech is granted to all citizens, paid or not, in all venues, whether paper or electronic. I am using my right to freedom of speech right now to fairly criticize you and your actions.

    I hope, for the sake of the Seattle Metropolitan area and the United States at large that your decision is overturned by a Superior Court. I believe it will be undoubtedly. The only injustice being done is the fact that you are capable of jailing an outspoken writer until your decisions are overturned. The legal system in the United States cannot stand such abuse sir.

    Your position is precarious. Your decision is wrong. You have, by your stubborness to consider the larger view beyond your court room, contributed to the ever increasing rot in the United States Judicial System. I expect I would be jailed as well for this email if I were in your jurisdiction. Like the original founding fathers of this country that is a chance I take to fight oppression such as you represent.

    A good day to you sir.

    Registered Voter
    United States Citizen

    Why isn't this on the front page?
    • If you email the judge, CC the reporter too:

      randerson@seattleweekly.com
    • Dear Sir,

      I'll try and make this brief. There are so many things wrong with what
      you've done in the Paul Trummel case, that i sit here a very dishartened american.
      So let me put it simply so even you can understand. There are 260 million
      people in this country who are allowed to observe and report what they have
      observed. Even if they are not paid for it.

      I know this is very oversimplified, but i think you need the simple version
      because you have gotten too bogged down with the legalize and have forgotten,
      or never understood the intend of the laws you were put there to uphold.

      That's my unpaid observation, and i'm reporting it to you and the Seattleweekly.

  • Just plain Wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @12:52PM (#3524561) Homepage
    How do you think that the paid press get their leads?


    See Lovell v. City of Griffin [findlaw.com]. Which ruled:

    The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.


  • There's no way this will stand on appeal. Freedom of speach is too well defined in the Constitution, the law, and in prior court ruling.

    The judge in this case has only accomplished an effective demonstration of how judges try to make law, not enforce it.
    • Sure, it'll be overturned. The question now is - will the judge be censured(sp)?
    • The judiciary doesn't enforce laws, the executive branch (police, corrections, etc.) does. Legislators make laws. Well, the Judiciary tries to make/alter laws all the time anyway. I've yet to hear of a judge locking a defendant in his/her chambers until the defendant had served his sentence.

  • Links to Seattle Weekly articles (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Here are some links to the relevant Seattle Weekly articles.

  • This is unbelievable (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DavidTC ( 10147 )
    I find it very strange how the articles keep talking about he published, or how he's 'harrassing' the home. Like that has anything to do with his right to publish.

    If he's harrassing the apartments, they should get a restraining order, and they did. All well and good.

    If he's libeling residents and/or the managment, he can be sued.

    But this entire concept of not being allowed to publish is just completely insane. It doesn't matter if he's paid or not, if he's a complete loon, if he's dangerous or whatever. He's still allowed to put up web pages that say whatever he wants. He can put up web pages saying they have sex with monkey in the back room, and that's not against the law.

    Now, if he knowingly publishes untruths, he may get sued later for libel, but that's later, and that's a civil action, anyway. You can't be jailed for libel, and I don't even think they can technically make you remove it. (Though obviously they could keep suing you for more and more money if you refused to remove it.)

  • In the materials cited, there appears to be some substantial confusion between:
    1. the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America;
    2. the "shield laws" which protect reporters in some states against subpoena of their notes and unpublished materials;
    3. defamation law (slander and libel); and
    4. the contempt power of a judicial officer.

    I had to navigate through several intermediate sites to actually find the Seattle Weekly article [seattleweekly.com] which implies that Mr. Trummel was jailed because he violated a court order compelling him to remove certain allegations and assertions from his web site. Since I don't have access to the court file and the various articles omit most of the pertinent facts, I can't really be sure, but I think these are the facts:
    Mr. Trummel was evicted from a housing situation, and was unhappy with the persons who managed that situation. Mr. Trummel posted a number of negative comments and allegations about certain persons at his web site. He also apparently engaged in other, more traditional "harassment" (visiting the location, making statements, etc.). Those persons took exception and sued for "harassment." It is unclear if the lawsuit included claims for libel or slander. It is unclear if an evidentiary hearing was held. It is unclear if the judge ruled on whether the persons criticized were "public figures" (which under established U.S. Supreme Court rulings under the First Amendment, would change the rules for a libel suit). While there are statements that the judge ruled that certain of Mr. Trummel's defenses were not valid (apparently concluding that the first amendment defense did not apply), it is unclear whether the judge ever made a ruling as to whether Mr. Trummel was a "journalist" or if so, whether that was somehow relevant to the determination of the case.

    It seems entirely possible that the judge heard evidence and ruled that the statements were false, and were made with actual knowledge of their falsity, for the purpose of harassing the persons named. If so, and if Mr. Trummel is judgment-proof (unable to pay damages), then an injunction might be proper, and violation of that court order might be appropriately punished through a contempt proceeding and jail time.


    I wish someone had the actual facts to present, rather than the bald assertion that the judge says the First Amendment only applies to journalists, which seems unlikely.


    Where is the copy of the judge's order? Where is the copy of the lawsuit pleadings? These are all public records, and their absence (and the absence of any direct reference to the information needed to confirm the remarkable claims) make me quite suspicious and unwilling to leap to the support of this fellow.


    If there was never any evidence submitted or considered, or if the judge ruled that publication of truthful statements, or expressions of opinion, could be enjoined without violating the first amendment, I would be glad to jump in and support the poor jailed fellow.


    Don't misinterpret this: I have a web site where I often post strong opinions, mixed with statements of fact, which annoy certain people. I have a degree in journalism and worked full-time as a reporter and editor for a number of years. My current site does not accept advertising, and does not charge subscription fees. So, in many ways, I am in the situation described as applying to Mr. Trummel, and the claims in the Slashdot piece and the Seattle Times article do concern me -- but I need more facts before I will believe that there really is an affront to the First Amendment.


    Finally: Comparisons to the "shield law" case of Vanessa Leggett (in Texas) are not applicable. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is no protection under the First Amendment to absolutely protect reporters from having to turn over their notes to prosecutors or defense attorneys under subpoena, certainly when there is a bone fide claim that the notes are substantially likely to contain information that might exonerate the defendant. To "cure" this defect, many states have enacted "shield laws" which create such a privilege (not a right) for journalists. The statutes do not extend this privelege to everyone who might gather information and who might wish to express it -- the legislatures have chosen to narrowly define the class of protected persons, usually requiring a direct association or assignment from an established news organization. While courts may rule that the First Amendment requires that any such law not discriminate between different types of journalists (and thus that the privilege should extend to "true crime book" writers like Ms. Vanessa Leggett, or to a person who maintains a not-for-profit web site), this would not mean that the First Amendment creates the "shield privilege," and a legislature could elect to repeal the statute and require all journalists to turn over their notes under specific circumstances.


    Let's get the facts first, and use them in reaching our conclusion -- it sounds like several folks have done the reverse: they want to believe that any jailing of any "expressive person" (writer or artist) is invalid.

    • As I re-read the Seattle Weekly articles, it appears that the issue was not Mr. Trummel's statements of opinions, nor facts, but instead there are references suggesting that the order simply ordered Mr. Trummel to remove certain "personal information" about specific individuals from the site.

      Sorry to be skeptical here, but I suspect that the omission of the list of "personal information" might make us less sympathetic to Mr. Trummel's cause.

      What is the "personal information" that the judge ordered removed? Is this really just a privacy issue (social security or credit-card numbers, or unlisted telephone numbers)?

      I don't think the First Amendment protects my right to publish a web page that truthfully states:

      Slashdot.org poster "Kilroy" is actually John Q. Smith, who lives at 123 Main Street, Apartment 3B, in Anytown, Utah. His social security number is 123-45-6789, his Visa credit card number is 4321-1234-5678-9012, and he most commonly uses the password "thelma" for his online accounts, and the PIN number 45678 for his ATM card and credit cards. His unlisted home telephone number is 801-555-1234, and his cell phone number is 801-555-4321. He has a special pager just to be notified when his wife gives birth, that number is 801-555-9876.
      There might be some argument about some of the information, but if someone were posting ALL of this information about me (presumably with the goal of f*cking up my life for a few weeks or months), I'd certainly want a judge to order them to remove the information and cease disseminating this information further (though let's face it, the milk is spilt).

      I don't know if this is what Mr. Trummel is alleged to have posted -- probably he did not post this kind of information. Again, the facts are still missing here.

      • Re:Maybe this is really about privacy (Score:4, Informative)

        by BCoates ( 512464 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @09:49PM (#3527541)
        I don't think the First Amendment protects my right to publish a web page that truthfully states:

        Slashdot.org poster "Kilroy" is actually John Q. Smith, who lives at 123 Main Street, Apartment 3B, in Anytown, Utah.[...]

        A website called "The Nuremberg Files" [christiangallery.com], which lists personal information about abortion doctors throughout America (with a strikeout font for ones who have been killed) won an appeal [wired.com] against the doctors trying to shut it down, and throwing out a $109m verdict against the site.

        Looking at Trummel's site [contracabal.net], it looks like the "personal information" was just people's names, replaced with pseudonyms like "Tall Pygmy".

        --
        Benjamin Coates
      • Slashdot.org poster "Kilroy" is actually John Q. Smith, who lives at 123 Main Street, Apartment 3B, in Anytown, Utah. His social security number is 123-45-6789, his Visa credit card number is 4321-1234-5678-9012, and he most commonly uses the password "thelma" for his online accounts, and the PIN number 45678 for his ATM card and credit cards. His unlisted home telephone number is 801-555-1234, and his cell phone number is 801-555-4321. He has a special pager just to be notified when his wife gives birth, that number is 801-555-9876.

        Hey - That's *me* that you are talking about! Now I am gonna have to take you to court to get that removed!
  • human beings in general. people remember the years by different thinks, thats part of the past that shapes the present, inturn to be the future. 02' will be forever remembered as the end of privacy, human rights going down the drain, and the corporation taking control. those scifi movies don't seem so far fetched now do they...

  • Judge Doerty's web site (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    See Judge Doerty's web site. [jdoerty.com] He's an elected official with a four-year term, and is up for re-election in 2004.

  • contradicting.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by cbang4 ( 574107 )
    Ironic, isn't it? America was founded for many reasons, and freedom of speech was one of the rights granted back then.
    Why doesn't it apply now?
    Let's do a history lesson, hm?
    The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Fourteenth Amendment, section one:
    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It is unlawful to inhibit the free speech of any citizen of the US. Honestly, let him have an opinion. If they arrested *everyone* making derogatory comments on the internet, half the nation might as well be in jail.
  • This judgement by a lowly judge will never uphold in higher courts, and this judge will probably be reprimanded for his ruling by his boss(es). And I wouldn't doubt if he is investigated for pay-offs.
  • Somebody open these people a tipjar [amazon.com] or a donation link [paypal.com]!!

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close