Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

lawyers (who as you know, tend to associate with criminals,

M, no.
Only a minority of lawyers practice criminal law. (And the sort of firm that WaPo hires wouldn't have anything to do with those lawyers.
You mess with a lawyer, and he is likely to sue.

Only a minority of lawyers practice criminal law.

The Mafia and drug cartels employ contract and finance lawyers too.

Secondary picketing is illegal in the UK.

"The tactic of secondary picketing was outlawed in the United Kingdom by the Conservative Party government of Margaret Thatcher in the mid-1980s, but the Labour opposition led by Neil Kinnock was pushing for it to be legalised before the 1987 general election.

Picketing - Wikipedia"

That quote doesn't say that the push by Labour opposition to legalize secondary picketing in the late 80s was successful.

Athlete gets caught saying something offensive to a small minority group. Protests start targeting brands that the athlete endorses.
That's definitely secondary... if people want to camp outside the guy's gated community and protest his continued existence, that's fine. But protesting against those who employ him until they fire him is a indirect tactic. Yet I wager that's legal there. (Admittedly, if the brands believe his indiscretion would harm sales they'd drop him without protests. But organized boycotts should be illegal in such cases if the law was consistent.)

As to the OP: someone who organizes protests would probably be a bad guy. but if he targets lawyers and/or cops and/or other corrupt types, like unions, he's kind of a anti-hero. Which is really a good guy willing to use bad guys' tactics against them.

I find such tactics reprehensible myself. And revealing information on others is basically intimidation. Even an invitation for them to be attacked. Pretty horrible, especially considering how unhinged some people are.

There's a story that has this done, particularly to media owners/executives/reporters. The concept being that since those people can determine that anyone (other than a minor) is a public figure and thus the free press rights protect them in harassing and publicizing anything they want about those members of the public, one such individual (a Powerball winner) decided that since the media are public figures (their names appear in the media all the time, after all) that he could start his own media outlet to harass them.

Now, there's a difference between investigating someone and publishing that individual's dirty laundry, and publishing names and locations to be SWATted, but the media have fought for the right to publish almost that level of information about people.

but the media have fought for the right to publish almost that level of information about people.

Aren't there privacy laws? How do they work for non-public figures?

Aren't there privacy laws? How do they work for non-public figures?

The questions you need to be asking are these:
Who and or what defines a "public figure?"

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1010/public-figures-and-officials

It's a very slippery legal slope.

Aren't there privacy laws? How do they work for non-public figures?

The media's argument would be that the definition of a non-public figure is "anyone we have no interest in reporting about" and that anyone rising to the level of being mentioned in a news report is a public figure. Celebrity of any form is enough to be considered a public figure.

It also appears to be a matter of who is doing the doxing and who is being exposed.

If you can claim to be part of 'the press' you can argue first amendment protection for breaking the law. And the courts often allow it.

For example, nowhere in the constitution does the idea of protected confidentiality for media sources exist. Yet try to force a reporter to reveal a source's identity and they all want to try taking that to SCOTUS.

Yet try to force a reporter to reveal a source's identity and they all want to try taking that to SCOTUS.

Is there no Supreme Court ruling on protecting the confidentiality of media sources?

Is there no Supreme Court ruling on protecting the confidentiality of media sources?

No. Current SCOTUS doctrine on the free press clause follows a press as technology view, not a press as industry/institution view. Under this press as technology view, the free press clause gives no rights/privileges to a NYT reporter that Joe Nobody doesn't have in equal measure.

SCOTUS has explicitly refused to recognize any kind of journalistic privilege as being baked into the constitution. The press(as industry) keeps trying anyway.

Several states have created a journalistic privilege against revealing sources statutorily, but so far, the US Congress has not.

SCOTUS has explicitly refused to recognize any kind of journalistic privilege as being baked into the constitution. The press(as industry) keeps trying anyway.

In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the Supreme Court declined to recognize a constitutional privilege excusing journalists called to testify before a grand jury.

The high court made clear that the state legislatures, like the state courts, were free, "within First Amendment limits, to fashion their own standards" regarding a reporter's privilege. Seventeen states already had statutory shield laws in place at the time Branzburg was decided. In California, the shield law is included in the state constitution.

Several states have created a journalistic privilege against revealing sources statutorily, but so far, the US Congress has not.

As of 2018, 49 states and the District of Columbia had enacted some form of shield law. Congress has attempted to pass a federal shield law since 2005, named the Free Flow of Information Act.

In 2017, efforts were renewed with another bill, co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland and U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. However, the bill was never passed.

Bills introduced and not passed, does not equal Congress doing something. There is no federal journalistic shield law.

Hmm, it would be interesting to know which state is the odd man out on that, but not interesting enough to go looking for it myself.

Bills introduced and not passed, does not equal Congress doing something. There is no federal journalistic shield law.

Well duh!! I think I pointed it out.

Well duh!! I think I pointed it out.

You were replying to a comment by me that the US congress hasn't done anything about a Journalistic shield law.

You were replying to a comment by me that the US congress hasn't done anything about a Journalistic shield law.

And yet somehow you thought I must be contradicting you. As 45 would say "Sad, so sad."

And yet somehow you thought I must be contradicting you.

Yeah, it response to me saying congress hadn't done any thing about it, you said this.

Congress has attempted to pass a federal shield law since 2005, named the Free Flow of Information Act.

In 2017, efforts were renewed with another bill, co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland and U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. However, the bill was never passed.

Given the context of what I said, I think "See, see, they've done something" is a reasonable interpretation of your response.

Which means that even if a state does have a law as such, the Federal Government can still prosecute them.

No, Journalistic shield laws aren't about criminal prosecution, but about allowing journalists to protect sources.

The only difference is that they can't claim the shield law privilege in a federal court even if that court is located in a state with a state shield law.

No, Journalistic shield laws aren't about criminal prosecution, but about allowing journalists to protect sources.

And when the (alleged) journalist refuses to reveal the traitor (or other scumbag) he got his info from, there needs to be a way to apply pressure. Prison makes a decent bargaining chip. (Yes, no prosecution needed, a judge can summarily sentence for contempt of court. Although if the journalist published material that's classified highly enough, he could be tried for espionage for passing that info to the enemy...possibly treason. Nothing like a possible death penalty to get people dealing.)

Prison makes a decent bargaining chip.

On non-criminal contempt, jail, not prison, and generally not for more than a few weeks.

Although if the journalist published material that's classified highly enough, he could be tried for espionage for passing that info to the enemy...possibly treason

Actually, no, in most cases. There is clear president from the US Supreme Court on this.

For someone who is not a government employee or otherwise has a security clearance for access to classified information, they can't prosecute people just for publishing classified information.

An espionage charger in such a case would require more than just possession and publication. It would require evidence of an attempt to actively induce of someone with legitimate access to reveal the information.

No. Current SCOTUS doctrine on the free press clause follows a press as technology view, not a press as industry/institution view. Under this press as technology view, the free press clause gives no rights/privileges to a NYT reporter that Joe Nobody doesn't have in equal measure.

And here,, if not everywhere, I agree with the court.
The actual Constitutional phrase is, "Freedom of speeech and of the press."
It's awfully forced to construe that as "The right of all persons to an action and the special privilege of a profession."
The oed cannot find a use of "the press" as meaning journalism predating the Constitution. OTOH, they can find "liberty of the press" as meaning the right to print what you wish before that time.

It's also important to note that SCOTUS got it right because it's "in context".

Back when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as "the press". There was no media. The term "journalist" actually comes from the practice of having a person sitting there in the court writing things down in a journal so they'd have some kind of record of what went on. They were the forerunners of the stenographers.

It'd be impossible for the founding fathers to include something that didn't exist at the time, so the only logical conclusion is that they must have meant "the press" in the technological sense. In other words, that people have 'freedom of speech', to say their words out loud, and also the 'freedom of press', to have their speech made solid through the new contraption called the printing press.

An actual "media" or "press corp" never existed in all the world prior to the invention of the printing press that could make such a thing possible in the first place. Paper was too precious a commodity to be used like we do today, hence why there was a "town crier" who would go around yelling out the events and proclamations.

An actual "media" or "press corp" never existed in all the world prior to the invention of the printing press that could make such a thing possible in the first place.

Edited.

And not just the printing press.

The press corps didn't become a thing until the advent of mass market daily newspapers, which required not just a Gutenberg press, but high (relatively) speed mechanical presses that could turn out thousands of copies in a few hours. That goes back to around the mid 19th century

So when someone spends a half hour broadcast on a highly watched television program telling the world that you personally are a child molesting, murdering, antisemitic, homophobic, racist sociopath, and provides 'proof' taken completely out of context, you're fine with that? Good to know.

I replied to the context of the OP. I had typed in a whole list of exclusions and ifs, and, and buts. Instead I erased to avoid a long rambling reply.

Any sensible person including me, would oppose the description you present.

I've often thought it would be nice to have a law against politicans and news agencies from lying. But then again, what's that saying?... how can you tell when a politician is lying?

how can you tell when a politician is lying?

That's an oldie. His lips are moving.

how can you tell when a politician is lying?

That's an oldie. His lips are moving.

Or his hands are moving, if he's deaf or Italian.

I replied to the context of the OP. I had typed in a whole list of exclusions and ifs, and, and buts. Instead I erased to avoid a long rambling reply.

Any sensible person including me, would oppose the description you present.

The problem is that one of the editorial positions of just about any group in the media is that they (that media group) have the right to treat anyone they choose to cover as a public figure - their 'logic' being that if they feel there's a reason to report on someone, that is enough to qualify that individual as a public figure. Another editorial position is that it's perfectly valid to selectively present information in order to generate the intended response, so if they want to do a hatchet job on someone (either because that someone disagrees with them, or because the hatchet job makes more interesting 'news') they're entitled. Hell, the NYT was perfectly willing to employ people who just made shit up completely so long as they didn't get caught. One got caught so they had to let him go.
But the point is, the media can lie about you without lying. Presenting the truth in such a way that it makes people believe the opposite of reality is something the media has been working at for several decades.

Hell, the NYT was perfectly willing to employ people who just made shit up completely so long as they didn't get caught. One got caught so they had to let him go.

That sentence cries for details. Who, pray tell, made stuff up, got caught, and had to be let go?

That sentence cries for details. Who, pray tell, made stuff up, got caught, and had to be let go?

Jayson Blair. Also (and probably more seriously in the view of the NYT) he plagiarized other newspapers' stories. But he did make up shit, like the videotape in the sniper case, and numerous details in his coverage of the Lynch case.

That sentence cries for details. Who, pray tell, made stuff up, got caught, and had to be let go?

https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/

Though technically he wasn't let go. He was allowed/forced to resign.

I've often thought it would be nice to have a law against politicans and news agencies from lying.

Politicians run the government, who's going to enforce it?

It would just end up being a hammer for the majority party to whack the opposition with, whether or not the opposition was actually lying.

But the bigger problem is that can the government be trusted to be a fair arbiter of what is/isn't true?

My answer is not just no, but HELL NO!.

Politicians run the government, who's going to enforce it?

More to the point, it would only be effective during campaigns, and not apply to the incumbent, because sovereign immunity.

Wouldn't the Pentagon Papers be a good example?

A good example for what?

1. The government tried to get an injunction barring the New York Times from publishing the papers. SCOTUS overturned the injunction. And did so with a holding that makes it unlikely that any federal court would ever issue such an injunction again.

2. The government employee who gave the papers to reporters was prosecuted.

3. None of the reporters were ever prosecuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#The_Supreme_Court_allows_further_publication

I agree that there's a slippery slope, but I'd argue that you need to fight fire with fire, too.

See 'anti-hero'. Using the bad guys' tactics against them doesn't necessarily make you a good guy in some people's opinions, mainly because they don't understand fully the meaning of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Therein lies the rub, I think. The "good guys" generally worry about the opinions of their peers and the folks they're trying to protect because they're good guys.

Of course, then you have to wonder if he'd really be a good guy if the opinion of some is enough to stop him from acting in a way that might mean success. Especially when failure to win and preserve the rights of people means not stopping a totalitarian ideology that's killed millions. Better the socialist empire win than the good guy get his reputation tarnished! ;-)

If I remember right, the very concept of the "anti-hero" originates in marxist literature. It was a postmodern attempt to degrade the idea of the hero by muddying the waters -- hence the name. In olden times, you were either the hero or you weren't. No need for any silly business about anti-this or anti-that. And why you never hear about anti-villains.

you never hear about anti-villains.

Well, you kinda see them more than hear about them.
A anti-villain would be a bad guy who follows all the rules. Even the unwritten ones.

Well, you kinda see them more than hear about them.
A anti-villain would be a bad guy who follows all the rules. Even the unwritten ones.

Not quite. An anti-villain is a villain with a strong moral code, even if that moral code is at odds with society. The anti-villain follows rules, but they are his own rules, not those of society.

Not quite. An anti-villain is a villain with a strong moral code, even if that moral code is at odds with society. The anti-villain follows rules, but they are his own rules, not those of society.

So really, a sociopath would be fine as a anti-villain? Odd.

So really, a sociopath would be fine as a anti-villain? Odd.

A sociopath and a psychopath are not the same thing.

And yes, a sociopath could function as either an anti-villian or an anti-hero.

Oh, and the anti-hero idea may have it's origins in Marxism, but it's far too old to be postmodern.

One of the earliest anti-heroes would have been the original comic strip version of Batman from the 1930s.

He carried a gun, and he was pretty darn close in MO to the much later Punisher from Marvel.

But infecting them with bat-flu is killing them by proxy ;-)

COVID is a cold, not a flu.

For quite a while, 'full-blown AIDS' was defined as suffering from pneumocystis, Karposi's, etc.

Then, it was redefined as merely having a viral load over a certain percentage.

But really, it's still not HIV that kills, so much as complications arising from HIV (that being the group of diseases which originally defined AIDS). Although it seems like it's become far less lethal over time.

A syndrome is a condition or illness where they do not know what the cause is

Ah. I had not been familiar with that definition. I always assumed that the term 'syndrome' was in respect to the fact that there was a collection of functionally related modes of fatality.

Once the actual cause of those various symptoms is known, it generally drops the "Syndrome"

Ah. But you see, I don't consider pneumocystis or Karposi's sarcoma 'symptoms'. They're their own diseases. They are lethal complications of HIV, but HIV only weakens the immune system to the point where otherwise 'wimpy' diseases will kill. (Also, there are limited cases in which some of them could infect and kill someone if undiagnosed, even if the person had no HIV infection. Very limited, but possible.)

A syndrome is a condition or illness where they do not know what the cause is

Can you cite a source for that definition?

30 years later and they have yet to agree on what causes "Gulf War Syndrome"

The existence of "Gulf War Syndrome" is disputed.

I've read a couple of articles that made the claim that the pallet of symptoms attributed to "Gulf War Syndrome" are suffered by the US general population at exactly the same rate as the occurrence of "Gulf War Syndrome" among Gulf War Vets.

Apart from Birmingham City supporters, obv.

He said 'anti-villains' not 'soccer hooligans'.

My favorite deterrent from the security days is one of those big Super-Soaker pump-action squirt guns filled with a bit of water... and a lot of skunk and doe-in-estrus scent from the hunting supply stores.

You get pretty good range and not a lot of blowback even in a headwind. Smells to high heavens, and anyone that gets it on them instantly regrets it. :D