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

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 the "shield laws" which protect reporters in some states against subpoena of their notes and unpublished materials;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