Latest Breaking News

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

36. I explained very clearly in what I think is Post No. 33.

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:30 PM

Jun 2014

The First Amendment is a watertight guarantee of the right of the press if you read its words.

There are many great jurists in America. Sadly, today members of rhe Supreme Court are not chosen for their outstanding integrity or their rigorous discipline and humility in interpreting the law, but rather for their political connections and beliefs and for their age, gender, race, etc.

It's sad but true.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Reporter Over Identity of Source [View all] DonViejo Jun 2014 OP

I know a federal shield law around isn't popular around here geek tragedy Jun 2014 #1

I am for a federal shield law for journalists. The problem is what has happened to the media in lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #2

^^THIS^^ plus you have Private Equity and Hedge funds buying media BumRushDaShow Jun 2014 #4

But how to define who is a journalist seveneyes Jun 2014 #18

Apparently the House passed such a law last week... DonViejo Jun 2014 #5

it was a funding restriction, not a per se ban geek tragedy Jun 2014 #6

We don't need a federal shield law. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #8

Yeah...but your 1st amendment rights don't trump the 6th amendment rights of my client. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #9

The first amendment does not allow anyone to withhold relevant information geek tragedy Jun 2014 #10

"extend privileges to some" seveneyes Jun 2014 #19

okay so you favor the current system then? geek tragedy Jun 2014 #20

"Congress shall make no law . . . ." JDPriestly Jun 2014 #22

you still haven't said how a subpoena which requires the sharing geek tragedy Jun 2014 #26

I suspect that the interpretation of " abridging the freedom of speech' karynnj Jun 2014 #39

figures heaven05 Jun 2014 #3

Our current Supreme Court. What can I say? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #7

where does the first amendment say that citizens can refuse to cooperate geek tragedy Jun 2014 #11

When the subpoena violates the First Amendment, the First Amendment takes precedence. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #13

how can a subpoena violate the first amendment? nt geek tragedy Jun 2014 #15

If the subpoena requests information that is privileged under the First Amendment guarantee of JDPriestly Jun 2014 #32

Okay, so now you're back to "journalists" as opposed to regular citizens. geek tragedy Jun 2014 #40

How does such a subpoena violate the First Amendment? Adrahil Jun 2014 #23

I'm not comfortable with the fact that Risen published what he did, but JDPriestly Jun 2014 #33

So where do YOU draw the line... Adrahil Jun 2014 #43

The journalist does not have to answer a subpoena. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #47

Nixon tried it...... msanthrope Jun 2014 #14

See my post 33. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #34

Upholding Branzburg v. Hayes, from 1971. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #12

The language of the First Amendment is very clear. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #16

And the 1st doesn't trump the 6th. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #17

Oh yes. It does. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #27

You still haven't explained how a subpoena violates the first amendment. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #28

How does a subpoena violate a privilege or a different law? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #35

You are mixing apples and oranges. This is a subpoena in a criminal matter for msanthrope Jun 2014 #42

Risen isn't charged with violating the law by obtaining or publishing the information onenote Jun 2014 #44

Yes. I am saying that we do not have a free press unless those who publish can obtain JDPriestly Jun 2014 #46

The constitution has never been interpreted to create the right you claim is necessary onenote Jun 2014 #50

That is because we live in a "security state" that is on its way to fascism. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #51

so the problem is that all three branches of government disagree geek tragedy Jun 2014 #21

Slavery was something that was pretty well accepted in the US for a long time. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #24

or maybe those who disagree with you have a point. geek tragedy Jun 2014 #25

I explained very clearly in what I think is Post No. 33. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #36

the problem is that in doing so you explicitly used the rationale geek tragedy Jun 2014 #41

In this day and age, we are all publishing news and opinion and are entitled to the protection JDPriestly Jun 2014 #48

So you would essentially ban all subpoenas geek tragedy Jun 2014 #49

Your certainty is belied by the historical record onenote Jun 2014 #31

Let's see. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #37

Is this a case where the government is blocking Risen from publishing? onenote Jun 2014 #38

Valerie Plame bpj62 Jun 2014 #29

Based on a quick read of the brief Blue_Tires Jun 2014 #30

Another illegitimacy noted. DeSwiss Jun 2014 #45