Fox News reporter faces jail for doing her job.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Apr 5, 2013.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/0...-reporter-wound-up-facing-jail-for-doing-job/

    Holmes's attorneys seem to be doing anything they can to get this guy off. Talk about sick lawyers. The guy is dead to rights.
     
  2. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #2
  3. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    The reporter is protecting her source and has a first amendment right to do that. The lawyers know he is guilty and are just looking for loopholes.
     
  4. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #4
    Which is their job.
     
  5. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    But is it worth destroying the first amendment for?
     
  6. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #6
    You raise two issues. The first issue is interesting, which is why the courts, including the Supreme Court, have been over it many times. In general, I don't like reporters going to jail for protecting sources, unless there is something quite extraordinary going on with regards to National Security.

    The second issue is completely off-base. You, and anybody else, have a right to legal representation. James Holmes has access to lawyers so that, among other things, you and I have access to lawyers should we need them. Due process.
     
  7. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    Holmes plead guilty to avoid the death penalty, so he admitted guilt already. The lawyers are trying to save him from a death sentence and doing what ever possible even if it is not legal.
     
  8. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #8
    Since the issue is not a question of whether he did the crime or not...it then becomes the Defense's job to attempt to present exculpating, or mitigating, evidence. My guess would be that their only course of action would be the insanity defense.

    As far as the reporter's situation goes...the question is whether there is a "shield law", and the reporter's attorney can make it stick.

    And before there is a huge argument about the insanity defense....

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense
     
  9. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #9
    They won't get their wish the judge giving them leeway like that IMHO is appeal insurance.
     
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    There is, however, a conflict between the different constitutional rights of several parties. Cases like this are not always simple.
     
  11. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #11
    What do you think the point of a lawyer is for?

    Everyone has the right to a fair trial and defense.

    The First Amendment isn't going anywhere...
     
  12. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #12
    Colorado does indeed have a Shield law, but lacks any judicial precedent to protect the reporter's privilege.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States

    It will be a moderate sell to make the law stick.

    BL.
     
  13. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #13
    Thanks for the information.:D

    I didn't know if they had s shield law...and I was too lazy to search it.:eek::eek:
     
  14. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #14
    As much as I dislike fox news this reporter has a right under the first amendment to protect her source.
    It was done a lot in the 1960's and nobody complained about it then except the government.

    Believe it or not. I'm on her side.
     
  15. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    Macnut, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are expressing outrage over things you clearly do not understand.

    I am an attorney. I have dealt with death penalty cases, and I have dealt with situations involving newspapers claiming both a right to examine sealed documents and a protection from disclosure.

    There are rules, protections, and a lot of precedent to these things. You are running around acting like the world is ending over this one case, and yet, you are clueless about what the rules are. Why don't you spend a little time reading the thousands, yes, thousands of cases on issues very similar to this. You will find that the courts and the attorneys know what they can and cannot do.

    You will hardly EVER find an attorney doing something illegal just to get a client off. We aren't that stupid, and can you imagine a situation where a successful attorney would put their own life at risk for a case? IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!

    So, to sum up, you need to take a chill pill and listen to the others here who are also trying to explain to you that the criminal justice system is just fine, and the rules about the media are just fine. They are there for a reason, and unless you are aware of some 'ACTUAL' violation of any kind of moral, ethical, legal, or professional code, you might want to calm down a bit.
     
  16. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #16
    Well said.:D

    My goodness, with such a good post, I can almost forgive you for being an attorney!!:p;)

    :rolleyes::D
     
  17. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #17
    Their feelings about him and his guilt are irrelevant. They bound to provide him legal defense and to mount the best defense possible.

    As for the reporter sitting on her sources....good for her. I hope she doesn't go to jail but if she doesn't I'll chip in to help pay for her to post bond.
     
  18. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #18
    Being a journalist should not be a 'Get out of jail free' card. If the reporter has violated the law, which in this case might violate the rights of a person, then off to jail they should go. In the UK journalists have engaged in organized violation of the law in order for their organization to profit. IMO that is no different than racketeering. In this case, suppose the suspect is let free because because the illegal pre-trial publicity made a fair trial impossible? No doubt some here would blame the justice system rather than the reporter and her sources....

    Also, the story cited in the OP's post is ... Fox News. Hardly unbiased.
     
  19. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #19
    Agreed with 99% of what you said, but I believe our government needs to focus more on rehabilitation than "criminal justice".

    Really? I thought Fox was so intent on taking away/denying rights from others.

    ----------

    Reminds me of when a Fox news reporter got punched in the face and pressed charges. What he DIDN'T show was he actually initiated the conflict by assaulting the other guy first. The second the police started asking questions and found this out, he dropped charges.
     
  20. AhmedFaisal, Apr 8, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2013
  21. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #21
    Which may well not be an option: traditionally in situations like this, the judge cites "contempt of court", for which there is no defense, no bail, no sentence, the person cited just sits in jail until one way or another, someone decides that they should be let out.

    If Fox uses this as indirect support for their vague "… sources say …" assertions, that could be kind of a bad thing, though.
     
  22. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    Are you honestly suggesting that a federal court can issue an order that is violation of the first amendment? I ask, because that is exactly the defense that the attorney representing the reporter will use. The Court may impose sanctions, but they cannot force cooperation.

    (edit) It is possible to be in contempt of a court, but still be within your constitutional rights. FYI
     
  23. AhmedFaisal, Apr 8, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2013
  24. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    Yes, there are limitations, but while the Court may use its authority to enforce gag rules and even impose sanctions on failure to comply, a journalist has a 1st Amendment right to not cooperate. They may go to jail, some do, but the Court cannot force a violation of the 1st.
     
  25. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #25
    But what are the bounds of a contempt citation? I get the impression that contempt is at the discretion of the judge, who can jail the offender indefinitely with no kind of due process or appeal, meaning in such a case, first amendment rights would be irrelevant.
     

Share This Page