Moreover, whatever happened to the public's "right-to-know?" I find it ironic that every deeply personal detail of a politician's life is fair game for the press --- and if that same politician stands on a stage full of reporters screaming that his political enemies are "liars," "queers," and "child molesters," --- that there are judges who think it should be ILLEGAL to let the public even know what was said.WTF, over? LOL RTWT!
Furthermore, have these justices really considered the chilling effect --- of not allowing a neutral reporting privilege -- that this could have on free speech? Consider this real world example cited by press lawyers:
"Otherwise, they said, for example, the press could not have reported last year on the charges lodged against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because Kerry's supporters said their charges were false."
Imagine simply reporting on a story like the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and getting a cease and desist letter from the Kerry campaign threatening legal action for simply detailing their allegations.
Depending on how this court case comes out, in a future election, we may not have to just imagine it...
"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." --Jesus
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious" --George Orwell
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." --F. Scott Fitzgerald
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Cuckoo Courts Continue
Getaloadofthis: