Aurora Trial Ignites Controversial Question: Can Freedom Of The Press Survive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hammer03

I bet Google (or the .gov) already knows.

Not tipping their hand, but if she interviewed him and took notes on her tablet, used email, a phone, etc, someone already knows.

---

Yep.


Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk

If it saves one child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hammer03

I bet Google (or the .gov) already knows.

Not tipping their hand, but if she interviewed him and took notes on her tablet, used email, a phone, etc, someone already knows.

---

Yep. I'm just a casual internet user, but I do work for a huge ISP. It is amazing what is tracked and logged.

She won't see any jail time for this.

But even then, I'm pretty sure this info came about before the gag order was put in place...we heard about the package just a couple days after the shooting.

If it is decided that she does not have to give up her source, then the concept of gun registration should be able to die in the dirt shortly after.

I don't see freedom of the press now. I see corporate interests feeding their version of news.

Sounds like Holmes' lawyers are trying to divert attention away from their clients and onto Ms. Winters.

The free press. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Hmmm, I agree that this information is irrelevant to the prosecution and defense, so shouldn't be compelled from her in the first place.

Diverting attention from the facts in an attempt to mitigate and or get the defendant off of their charges IS A DEFENSE ATTY'S JOB. Good for them. Everyone deserves a high quality defense in court. This is also a vital part of the beginning of our country and instilled in the 5th amendment.

Personally, I don't see how not divulging a source is protected under the 1st amendment. The 1st guarantees the right to report information in the press, but short of someone point out a precident or ruling clarifying this also protects reporters from releasing confidential source information concerning criminal activities, I don't believe reporters have the right to not divulge this information. EVERYONE has the right to confront their accuser in court. There is no protection under the 1st over-riding the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment.

So, I believe she shouldn't have to reveal the CS for this case, but reports in general should have to reveal the CS in subsequent litigation relevant to the 6th amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_L

Illusion of freedom*

---

^^^^yep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

The free press. Isn't that an oxymoron?

---

No. Just regular morons