Glen Beck and the 1st Amendment

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

A looming First Amendment showdown drew closer Tuesday as a federal judge ordered conservative media host Glenn Beck to identify at least two confidential sources in connection with a defamation lawsuit stemming from Beck's reporting on the Boston Marathon bombing.
The suit was filed by Saudi Arabian student Abdulrahman Alharbi, who was injured at the scene of the deadly bombings. Beck continued to link the Saudi national to the attacks even after U.S. officials said publicly he'd been cleared.
U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris ruled that Beck must disclose the names of two Department of Homeland Security employees who allegedly gave a Beck producer information backing up the radio and TV host's claim that Alharbi was the "money man" behind the attack.
The judge said deposition testimony from Beck and two of his top deputies at the time — Joel Cheatwood and Joe Weasel — was "vague and often contradictory" about what the sources said and when they said it. She also noted that the key sources spoke directly only with Weasel, who claimed to record the information on Post-It notes "which he then discarded."
Saris said she ordered the production of records from several government agencies, but they were not of help in confirming what the Beck aides were allegedly told. "None of the documents supports the idea that Alharbi was the 'the money man' financing the Boston Marathon attacks," the Boston-based judge wrote in her 61-page ruling.

I really want Beck to lose this, because he's a windbag. And I also don't think he had any sources, just bull**** he threw against the wall.


Judge: Glenn Beck must identify sources on Boston Marathon bombing

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Glenn Beck will undoubtedly go to jail to protect his sources and the Constitution.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

Cheatwood and Weasel?

 

[Vombatus]

Cheatwood and Weasel?

Sounds a bit like Caddyshack.

 

[Batman]

Cheatwood and Weasel?

Represented, no doubt, by the fine law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe.

 

[Alma]

Glenn Beck will undoubtedly go to jail to protect his sources and the Constitution.

He sure as **** will.

Messiah complex.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Who knew that Bobby Heenan was a Glenn Beck producer?

 

[YankeeFan]

The problem with hoping other news organizations will rally around them isn't that they're a right wing organization, it's that they likely made up the "source".

 

[Football_Bat]

Beck is screwed either way. Either he stonewalls and goes to jail, or admits he made it up and pays through the nose. Should've settled.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I haven't followed this. One thing I am not clear on from a quick read of it. ... Is she threatening him with jail if he defies her order? Or is it simply, "Reveal your [nonexistent] sources or else you are going to lose your case?"

If it is the first, I have a huge problem with it. Then it is a first amendment issue. If it is the second, it should be fair game in a defamation suit. Defamation suits hinge on false statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. A possible defense is that you acted in good faith -- even if someone was feeding you bad info. If you could simply rely on an "Well, I had a source, but I am not telling you who it is," defense, it would be ridiculous.

If you are a legit journalist, you should never rely on just an anonymous source. You need to try to verify anything an anonymous source tells you via other sources or with corroborating details from other places. I'd argue you should never report anything WITHOUT some level of independent verification. Even if you disagree about that, at the very least cover your ass (and gain credibility in what you are reporting), by saying in your report that your anonymous source couldn't verify what he or she was alleging, and you couldn't verify it on your own via other sources. Point out the efforts you made to try to verify what you are throwing out there. That way if you get sued like this, you can keep your source anonymous and at least have a semblance of a defense that you were not acting with reckless disregard for the truth.

From what I read, Beck himself never even spoke to these supposed sources, at least according to his lawyer's statement. He certainly didn't try to corroborate anything from other sources or give any evidence that he did. It reads like he defamed the guy, and he is trying every first amendment defense possible to avoid dealing with the consequences. First he tried to say the guy was a public figure, which is ridiculous. Then, he is trying to say that what he said may have been false, but he didn't do it with reckless disregard for the truth. I never like a judge ordering someone to reveal an anonymous source. The judge could have proceeded without that. In a typical defamation suit, it sounds like he'd be screwed either way.

 

[justgladtobehere]

Being sent to jail for failure to testify about a source is not a First Amendment issue. Journalists don't have privilege under the Constitution and generally are required to testify to anything a non-journalist would be required to testify to. That's why some states have shield laws.

 

[The Big Ragu]

You are correct. I do, however, consider it is a first amendment issue in that the forced disclosure of sources threatens the rights spelled out in the first amendment. It undercuts the media's independence and can deter coverage of things that a reporter is afraid might draw a subpoena. Those subpoenas certainly abridge the freedom of the press, which is exactly the way it is spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

The fact is, though, that it has never been recognized the way I am saying, unfortunately. Which is why I am a a huge advocate of shield laws and wish there was a Federal one.

 

[justgladtobehere]

It's not a prior restraint and it puts 'journalists' on the same level as most other people. You read far too much into the freedom of the press. It doesn't confer some exalted status on those who claim they are engaged in expressing their right.

I have a problem with any First Amendment argument that refers to the profession of journalism and how it is conducted. Whether it's the ethics of publishing a sex tape or the need for journalists to be protected from revealing sources, it doesn't matter. The Constitution doesn't go that far.

 

[The Big Ragu]

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 bull**** 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.

 

[justgladtobehere]

So are you arguing that revealing sources is something that should be protected by the First Amendment or that there should be legislation that recognizes the principles of the First Amendment and protects sources?

 

[The Big Ragu]

So are you arguing that revealing sources is something that should be protected by the First Amendment or that there should be legislation that recognizes the principles of the First Amendment and protects sources?

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.

 

[lcjjdnh]

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.

Who should come within the ambit of this rule, in your view? Newspaper reporters? Bloggers? Guy on his Facebook page? Sort of problematic, I think, for the government to be deciding what types of "journalists" deserve this protection.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Who should come within the ambit of this rule, in your view? Newspaper reporters? Bloggers? Guy on his Facebook page? Sort of problematic, I think, for the government to be deciding what types of "journalists" deserve this 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.

 

[YankeeFan]

Beck is screwed either way. Either he stonewalls and goes to jail, or admits he made it up and pays through the nose. Should've settled.

Beck says he doesn't personally know who the source(s) is/are.

And the producer who supposedly talked to the source no longer works for him.

I'm not sure how you can continue to go after him, or his company.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Beck says he doesn't personally know who the source(s) is/are.

And the producer who supposedly talked to the source no longer works for him.

I'm not sure how you can continue to go after him, or his company.

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 **** and there is no source. At best, the truth wasn't of any primary concern to him.