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?"

Comments

Re:not so crazy?

[medcalf]

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.

Much more complex than that

[coyote-san]

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.

Links to Seattle Weekly articles

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some links to the relevant Seattle Weekly articles.

• Is Paul Trummel a crusading journalist or the neighbor from hell?
• News Clips-- Judicial copyediting
• Judge jails writer for contempt of court.
• Trummel still jailed

Confusion: 1st Amendment, Shield Law, Defamation

[markwelch]

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 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.

Re:Maybe this is really about privacy

[BCoates]

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", which lists personal information about abortion doctors throughout America (with a strikeout font for ones who have been killed) won an appeal against the doctors trying to shut it down, and throwing out a $109m verdict against the site.

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

--
Benjamin Coates

Actually, he's pretty clever

[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!

contradicting..

[cbang4]

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.