The lawyers have been unable to identify the source on their own, and have issued a subpoena for Ms. Winter to testify in the hope that the threat of jail time will compel her to violate her source’s trust.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/04/08/aurora-shooter-trial-forces-discussion-on-press-freedom/
She should not have to give up her source. If the judge orders her to give up the source or go to jail she better go to jail and take it to the Supreme Court.
"Freedom" of the Press! Hahahaa. That cracks me up. The mass market media, both televised and in print, is sniffing the crotches of the liberal agenda groups so significantly that they no longer have freedom either. They just don't know it yet.
I see your truth, and I'll raise you that most of the media is literally owned, fed, and controlled by the gov't.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
Freedom of the press, sure, as long as they operate within the parameters defined by the (D).
It starts with the Second, then the First.
I agree with everything you folks are saying.
Illusion of freedom*
High speed printing presses, radio, TV and the internet didn't exist when the 1st Amendment was written, threfore, by the reasoning of the gun-control crowd, they aren't protected.
Only hand-operated screw presses are protected.
O2
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer03
Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk
If it saves one child.
Yep. I'm just a casual internet user, but I do work for a huge ISP. It is amazing what is tracked and logged.Quote:
Originally Posted by hammer03
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.
^^^^yepQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
No. Just regular moronsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Anyone else scratching their head on this one? What I mean is, if this was a CNN or (P)MSNBC "journalist" nothing would be happening right now. But since it's from a Fox News person they're going after her tooth and nail. Don't you fall into that trap, democrats are full of crap!