Slashdot Mirror
Judge: Freedom of the Press for Commercial Use Only
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?"
What will this mean for Indymedia? I think this ruling will be quickly struck down. I hope.
Ceci n'est pas un post
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?
Got Rhinos?
Disclaimers - I'm not american and the article is /.ed already.
I thought the supreme court was the only one allowed to rule on constitutional matters? Isn't this Seattle judge going to get smacked for ruling outside his jurisdiction?
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?
Got Rhinos?
...
(Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!)
Ceci n'est pas un post
Here'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 website.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
So if he had placed at least one banner ad on the website it would have been a commercial operation?
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
...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
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.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
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.
Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
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.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Judge's Email: james.doerty@metrokc.govn derson.shtml
Reliable Link: http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0212/news-a
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?
My reality check bounced.
See Lovell v. City of Griffin. Which ruled:
Fight Spammers!
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.
I will offer .000000001 per story on indymedia.org forever. Just email me per story and I will send checks out after you justify postage.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
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.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
If you email the judge, CC the reporter too:
randerson@seattleweekly.com
The Seattle Weekly has the story here.
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.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I had to navigate through several intermediate sites to actually find the Seattle Weekly article 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:
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.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
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:
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.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
Well, it also granted the right to assemble, to petition grievances against the government; you don't need a printing press for that.
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...
No! YOU are a complete and utter moron for posting something stupid like that on slashdot. Even if you've used an anonymizer (anonymizer services do not protect your identity if you're committing crimes over their service) or gone through a proxy (no use, since they've started logging packets directly at your ISP)... You have stepped out of line, they know it, and you can count on it coming back to haunt you for the rest of your life. I feel sorry for you in a way, but you've asked for it and now you will have to suffer the consequences.
> 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
See Judge Doerty's web site. He's an elected official with a four-year term, and is up for re-election in 2004.
Dear registered United states citizen with a vote or two,
With deep regret I must inform you of the saddening truth, that I don't give a flying fuck about your vote. As far as my decision in question is concerned: There are interests that are currently hotly debating the role and value of free speech in the America of the 21st century. USA: Love it, or leave it!
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!
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 or a donation link!!
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Being a journalist of any stripe does not excuse libeleous or slanderous behavior or speech and he certainly seems to have been throwing it around rather thickly.