Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said: "It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine news gathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public."
Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, said they'd "weigh" his "options," but not specifically whether he'd appeal, and they continue to assert that the Times "went well beyond the conventional news-gathering techniques permitted by the First Amendment."
Whoa! My bad law talk alarm went off! Don't say "permitted by the First Amendment."
The Times was free to do what it did unless there's some valid law that forbids it. Trump made a claim that what the Times did was not permitted because it violated tort law. If he was wrong about that and no tort law or other law was violated, then what the Times did would be permitted, regardless of constitutional law. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects against encroachments on freedom of speech and freedom of the press that might occur if tort law limits what is permitted. If. If tort law or other law doesn't limit, then you don't need permission from the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the defense against encroachment, not the source of permission!
I like the quote from Justice Reed because it's precise about the role of the First Amendment: It relieves us of the fear of aggressive interpretations tort law.
पोस्ट्स
४३ टिप्पण्या:
I'm not expressing any opinion about whether whatever the NYT did was a tort within the meaning of NY law OR whether the First Amendment protects those activities.
No surprise but I cringed when NYT and reporter are described as equivalents. I mean they told us in writing they were suspending journalistic practices because they perceived DJT as a threat to humanity. It would seem at some point you should lose the protection of the media/journalist shield.
"It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine news gathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public."
Charlie, the press hasn't engaged in routine news gathering for 50 years. Please dial 1-800-come-on-now.
What about the way Fox covered Dominion? Running a story even when staff confirm (somewhat secretly) that they know it is false? Where would today's news be without lying activities like that?
Unless you are FoxNews. Then you have no First Amendment right of freedom of the press. At least in Delaware.
"Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said: 'It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine news gathering to obtain information [against selected political targets we deem] of vital importance to the public [and to ignore, hide, or subvert information of vital importance of those we want to shield from scrutiny].'"
As someone who used to toil in the journalism mines at the Former Paper of Record, I never thought I'd say it's time to revisit Sullivan v NYT, which has, in sum, allowed and even encouraged a Chinese menu of favored and disfavored coverage, by commission and omission, depending on politics. See, e.g., the Hunter laptop.
the press is protected when it engages in routine news gathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public.
ISTM this would have been a stronger statement without the weasel words. Unless the press routinely investigates the tax returns of presidents and presidential candidates from whatever party, and unless you can make a case that the information contained in such tax returns is of vital importance to the public, these additions to the basic statement "the press is protected when it engaged in news gathering" just open you up to challenges - maybe legal, maybe just ethical.
they traffic in stolen documents, but they go after veritas for items on the open market, and they treat others as 'Russian disinformation'
Excellent analysis, Ann.
I like the quote from Justice Reed because it's precise about the role of the First Amendment: It relieves us of the fear of aggressive interpretations tort law
now do e carrol jean's lawsuit against Trump. Was Trump calling her a liar a tort?
Did they actually "gather" news? Was it "ordinary"? If it was"ordinary," when will we see similar news "gathered" about Joe and Chuck and Nancy?
This is a bit too general to be meaningful. The First Amendment does not offer blanket immunity to "tort law." If a reporter runs over a pedestrian while reporting a story, that's going to be subject to ordinary negligence law. And, for that matter, if a reporter were to bribe a public official to obtain non-public documents, they're potentially liable for a crime.
What the First Amendment does is protect against certain elements of certain torts. For instance, the "actual malice" requirement of a defamation claim against a public figure. That's not an absolute defense, but rather a higher burden that has to be met.
In this case, I don't know what particular tort Trump was alleging, nor what specific way the First Amendment protected against liability.
Our esteemed hostess is still laboring under the delusion that the interactions of TFG and the legal establishment have anything to do with the law as she learned it and taught it during her long and distinguished career.
The process is the punishment.
It's also a warning to others not to get out of line.
Sooner or later they're going to get him, find him guilty or liable for something, somewhere, Beria-style. It won't make a difference, though- the haters are gonna hate, the blind followers are gonna follow. Maybe some in the middle will notice the similarities to 1920s Weimar Germany, but that would require knowledge of modern history before the election of Obama, so never mind.
It has nothing to do with the law.
Why didn't Trump sue in Federal court?
Laws?? What laws?? Are there laws anymore that Progressives have to follow?? If so, I haven't seen any.
A.J. Liebling wrote: "'Freedom of the press' is for people who own presses."
And their employees. But not you peasants.
they continue to assert that the Times "went well beyond the conventional news-gathering techniques permitted by the First Amendment."
The First Amendment has nothing to do with news gathering techniques. Almost everyone has a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of "freedom of the press" as used in the First Amendment. At the time the First Amendment was written and passed, the word "press" did not refer to a self-selected "elite" of reporters and journalists. The word "press" actually referred to the machinery required to publish and distribute a person's ideas. In fact I believe that one of the reasons that the meaning changed to today's meaning was a deliberate effort to create this misunderstanding.
"Freedom of the press' is for people who own presses."
Freedom of the press actually protects everyone's right to own a press.
the press is protected when it engages in routine news gathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public.
Once again, this expresses a basic misunderstanding of the intended meaning of freedom of the press.
Fortunately, the First Amendment protects against encroachments on freedom of speech and freedom of the press...
Well that matters who is speaking and who is "reporting". Ask Julian Assange.
Freedom of Speech in the United States is fading...
But, as long as you are going after Donald Trump, you can say, or do, whatever the hell you want. That is a protected right. Perhaps we should just make in a Constitutional Amendment.
So, the left still likes parts of the First amendment? Or is Freedom of the Press also not absolute and should yield to liberal censorship efforts?
If Trump litigates for economic motives, he is foolish. If he has noneconomic goals, he is pursuing them incompetently. Woo hoo! Four more years!
Whoa! My bad law talk alarm went off!
You’ve got one of those? Must have kept whacking the snooze button for Roe
Now do the Dominion vs FoxNews case, NYTimes.
While I think the case should have been dismissed, so should the Dominion vs FoxNews case. There is clearly a double standard now being applied in the US, and this will lead to bloodshed eventually.
Gusty Winds said...
Fortunately, the First Amendment protects against encroachments on freedom of speech and freedom of the press...
Well that matters who is speaking and who is "reporting". Ask Julian Assange.
Freedom of Speech in the United States is fading...
But, as long as you are going after Donald Trump, you can say, or do, whatever the hell you want. That is a protected right. Perhaps we should just make in a Constitutional Amendment.
5/4/23, 9:47 AM
THIS^^^^
You mean it’s not against the law to access my personal tax data?
Freedom of the press... publisher.
JournoLism is the fourth leg of a fascist State.
Lloyd W. Robertson said...
"What about the way Fox covered Dominion? Running a story even when staff confirm (somewhat secretly) that they know it is false? Where would today's news be without lying activities like that?"
Yeah! Now do MSNBC, CNN, NPR ..............
"Courts have long recognized that reporters are entitled to engage in legal and ordinary news-gathering activities without fear of tort liability — as these actions are at the very core of protected first amendment activity,."
There was no legal way for them to get Trump's tax returns. Since their actions were inherently illegal, and there's an "and" there 9legal AND ordinary), that means there is no possible way an honest judge could find the NYT's actions protected.
But hey, that's ok. You want an America with no law, you can have one.
When your people start getting assassinated, understand it will be too late to say "oh wait, we really do want law"
New York Times vs Sullivan is person ! You can libel any politician as long as it is a Republican. Goes double for Trump. True or false is no problem.
What Gahrie said. 1A bars censorship by the State, it does not protect a tortfeasor from the consequences of, say, defamatory publication nor, say, inducing others to break contracts requiring confidentiality.
Or are we supposed to excuse their torts when their scoop is considered really really newsworthy? Or when their target is really really unpopular?
I’m getting pretty tired of every journalist wanting to reprise “All The President’s Men.”
The Supreme Court in NY is the trial level court; it’s judges are titled as “justices” but they are essentially trial judges.
Thank you Ann, for not allowing that to pass. The distinction is essential.
If you’re a politician allergic to public scrutiny you need to get into another line of work.
That right to privacy is not all it is cracked up to be.
Earnest Prole said...
If you’re a politician allergic to public scrutiny you need to get into another line of work.
if you're a worthless piece of shit who thinks it's ok to violate the law and share your political opponents tax returns you need to suck start a shotgun
If tort law or other law doesn't limit, then you don't permission from the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the defense against encroachment, not the source of permission!
This by our hostess reminds me of Obummer's infamous moan about the constitution being "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
What separates the United States from virtually all other countries is the wisdom of our founders in recognizing that our rights as humans comes to us from outside of government...from the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". This requires no proof. It is self-evident.
Our rights are free from the whims of government and are not permitted to us, or of even greater concern, refused to us when they are obstacles to the powerful. While Trump has been very poorly treated by the powerful folks pulling the levers, he's a big boy and can be expected to deal with it.
The greater problem comes from the lefties who surely would do the same to the rest of us if and when they get the chance, and the first item on the list is to deny us the protection of the First Amendment...and the Second...and the....
- Krumhorn
There was no legal way for them to get Trump's tax returns.
(This is where my husband calls me the word police.)
There was one legal way for them to get Trump's returns: ask him for them and have him hand them over willingly. Absent that, as far as I understand privacy laws (IANAL), you are 100% correct.
ChatNYT
Patrick Henry was right! said...
"Unless you are FoxNews. Then you have no First Amendment right of freedom of the press. At least in Delaware.'
Fox had every right to go to trial and litigate their First Amendment freedom. They chose to settle.
Our rights are free from the whims of government and are not permitted to us, or of even greater concern, refused to us when they are obstacles to the powerful.
Our rights are more than free from government interference. They are inalienable - we can't even give then away.
Who's this "We" being protected by the First Amendment, per Kimosabe.
That would be Sixty Minutes but not Project Veritas.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा