On 6/27/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *that* federal agency? Don't you mean all current federal agencies?
Amen.
-Cameron
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support
efficiency by 100%
http://ww
I think investigative reporting is already on the endangered species
list in this country and any move that discourages whistleblowers,
whether their motives be pure or not, is likely to be a setback for
democracy.
Dana
On 6/27/05, Jochem van Dieten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jennifer Larkin wr
*that* federal agency? Don't you mean all current federal agencies?
Dana
> expertise in that area. It just so happens that in this case that
> federal agency is being run by people who do not have the best
> interests of US resident citizens in mind. They much prefer
> corporations with money.
>
Jennifer Larkin wrote:
>
> The Bill of Rights has been interpreted to allow reporters
> to hide their sources. It's not really a guaranteed right. In this
> case, the person being hidden is pretty much legally defined as a
> traitor and the reporters who published the information have clearly
> col
I'm under the impression that prisoners aren't allowed to vote.
We aren't talking about a constitutional guarantee of a right and even
some of those rights are taken away if you are guilty of a crime.
"Freedom of the press" doesn't mean "to do whatever the heck they
want." They do get in trouble
Yea, I misread the article -- I thought they'd made the opposite
ruling.
> That's it exactly, you cannot have selective rights based
> on the person. Its the same basic philosophy with the ACLU
> - you have to protect the rights of everyone, even obnoxious
> or offensive types like the KKK or neo-
That's it exactly, you cannot have selective rights based on the
person. Its the same basic philosophy with the ACLU - you have to
protect the rights of everyone, even obnoxious or offensive types like
the KKK or neo-Nazis.
larry
On 6/27/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay that
Okay that sucks... I understand conceptually that they perceive the
reporters are protecting people who are "in the wrong", but if you
don't let them protect "the bad guys", then "good guys" will never
come to them with important information.
> The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the t
The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the two reporters,
upholding the rulings of lower courts. In other words allowing
coercive measures, ie., jail time for 18 months and longer or massive
fines, if the reporters refuse to coooperate by revealing their
sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/L
It say the court rejected the appeal of the reporters.
I'm not sure if the appeal applied to people who committed a crime by
speaking to the reporters about this or if this applies more broadly.
I'm hoping that they saw this as an exceptional case, which is well
within the bounds of reason. In th
I thought the ruling was that reporters were allowed to protect their
sources? Did I misread the article?
> Consider this situation, lets say the CIA is involved with
> torturing
> american citizens (its an example), and someone who
> objects to this
> violation tells a reporter. He also tells the
Consider this situation, lets say the CIA is involved with torturing
american citizens (its an example), and someone who objects to this
violation tells a reporter. He also tells them that if exposed it may
at least mean jail time for him if not his life.
So the reporter writes up the story and th
Personally I agree with the ruling about journalists ability to
protect their sources... though the cable ruling kinda sucks. Didn't
read much past that... or don't remember what it was. :P
> Half and half. The other rulings, involving journalists
> and sources,
> and cable isp's not including oth
I was responding specifically to the 10C issue. It's one more step
towards getting them out of KY schools!
--Ben
Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Half and half. The other rulings, involving journalists and sources,
> and cable isp's not including other isp's, are not so good.
>
> larry
~~~
Half and half. The other rulings, involving journalists and sources,
and cable isp's not including other isp's, are not so good.
larry
On 6/27/05, Ben Doom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gruss Gott wrote:
> > High Court Bars Display
> > Of Ten Commandments
> >
> > A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS
Can we get a new monetary system too while we're at it. Or could we
make it in God(s) we trust for those which may have more than one God
they trust in?
Adam H
On 6/27/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> High Court Bars Display
> Of Ten Commandments
>
> A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS
Gruss Gott wrote:
> High Court Bars Display
> Of Ten Commandments
>
> A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP
> June 27, 2005 10:26 a.m.
>
> WASHINGTON -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments
> displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky
> cross the line b
High Court Bars Display
Of Ten Commandments
A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP
June 27, 2005 10:26 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments
displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky
cross the line between separation of church and stat
18 matches
Mail list logo
