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

Another story

[anthony_dipierro]

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"?

Its happened before....

[bofkentucky]

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.

My reply.

[Talonius]

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?

Just plain Wrong!

[www.sorehands.com]

How do you think that the paid press get their leads?

See Lovell v. City of Griffin. 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.

One small problem

[coyote-san]

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?

[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.

It's in the Seattle Weekly

[smiff]

The Seattle Weekly has the story here.

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.

Maybe this is really about privacy

[markwelch]

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

[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

Re:not so crazy?

[Darby]

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.