Glen Beck and the 1st Amendment

I didn't say that it is prior restraint. Nor did I really read anything into the Constitution. In fact, my post said, that is the reason I am in favor of shield laws and wish there was a federal one. I think people should want it addressed.

For me, it is not about trying to carve out an exact meaning of the words in the Bill of Rights and slice it, dice it and parse it to say "it applies here, but not here." That is the bullshit that creates massive perversions that read every nonsensical thing into the document and creates a mishmash of new rights (that change when social attitudes change). I didn't suggest that.

I'm am talking about the principle itself. Unlike Alexander Hamilton, I believe a free press is a big one in a democracy. That is why I don't care if it is prior restraint. That isn't some magical line in the sand that defines the principle for me. In my opinion, legislators or judges shouldn't be doing anything that has the potential to scare someone into not publishing something. And if you are afraid of being subpoenaed and thrown in jail, that certainly has the potential to deter you from reporting on something. Prior restraint isn't the issue for me. The unimpeded press is. For the most part, I am concerned about government using tactics to shield itself from public examination. When judges have the power to threaten to jail someone for not revealing a source (in any case), I think it opens that door. So I'd rather see that door closed. Which is why, as I said, I am a big advocate of shield laws and wish there was a federal one.

 

Shield laws are legislation. It's not like I am proposing something that hasn't already been widely enacted by state legislation.

People are willing to read whatever self-serving things they want into the Constitution and create new rights. Not consistently here, even though I think it actually would have been way more consistent with the principles behind the freedom of the press than some of the BS "rights" courts have created over the years that bear no relationship to the document. So fine. It's not inherent in the First Amendment. What I am saying is that I personally think this is important. People shouldn't be comfortable with judges being able to throw people in jail for not revealing a source. That kind of thing has a lot of negative potential to stifle examination of things someone might not want investigated. There is absolutely nothing keeping us from enacting legislation that takes care of it. I think a federal shield law would be a welcome protection.

 

Anyone who publishes or broadcasts something and then gets threatened by a judge with jail if he or she won't reveal an anonymous source. People make this way more complicated than it needs to be. That is the idea behind a "free" press. These rights can be exercised by everyone and anyone. Otherwise you have a "regulated" press.

 

It's a civil defamation suit. The standard is that he publicized something false and he did it with reckless disregard for the truth.

If his defense is that 1) he publicized something from a mystical source he never talked to and he doesn't know who that source is, and 2) He can't offer any other evidence that he tried to verify the info independently. ... he deserves to lose a defamation suit.

There is no need to twist his arm about revealing his source. If that is his defense, we should be starting to figure out the damages. At worst he is full of shit and there is no source. At best, the truth wasn't of any primary concern to him.