You’re right about the right to a speedy trial having something to do with it, but there are freedom of the press issues too. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia 448 U.S. 555 (1980) held that the First Amendment requires that criminal trials be open to the press, absent some other overriding interest.
Chula, I think you missed a word in Dewey’s cite.
It was the “public” part that he was emphasizing not the “speedy” part.
Oops. I left out thw words “and public.” But that affect change my point: that the First Amendment is relevant to the issue of press access to trials. The case that is on point, by the way, is Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn 420 U.S. 469 (1975), which held that a Georgia statute that made publication of the name of a rape victim a tort violated the First Amendment.
Guaranteeing the right to a speedy and public trial seems like the intent of the law is to protect the accused, not to protect the rights of the news media to know or to have access to information if the parties involved do not wish it.
The news media is already prevented from disclosing the names of accused minors in order to protect them. Once a verdict is given they do report details if such coverage is warranted or they feel it it of public interest. I see no reason why such a blanket of protection should not or can not be used to protect all innocent parties. Meaning everyone accused of a crime who does not with to have their name disclosed.
As I said I’m inder the impression that Canada does things this way and I don’t hear much about how this disparity is causing a social collapse in their justice system.
This is not a free speech issue. If the accused wanted to go to the media or the accuser and fully disclose then they should have this right so long as they are either in agreement with the opposing side on the matter of names and so long as they do not attempt to use such media attentin to sway the court of public opinion and thereby possibly tainting a jury.
Free speech as I understand it is not about securing our right to know the details of other people’s affairs when those people have not been convicted of a crime. It is about our ability to express our own opinions, bot political and social, and artistic.
Frankly the news media holds far too much power in this country. The pendulum has swung too far.
Once more for the slower children…the freedom that pertains here is not freedom of speech. It is freedom of the press. It’s really really dumb of you to keep bleating “this is not a free speech issue” when everyone else has pretty much grasped that we’re talking about press freedom here.
I think you’re being nitpicky here. If clear to me that zen meant that the defendant’s 6th Amendment right to a public trial should be the overriding concern, rather than the press’s 1st Amendment rights. zen’s overall point makes sense. The 1st Amendment and 6th Amendment concerns get jumbled up here. Freedom of the press is not so a positive in and of itself - it’s protected because it’s considered crucial to protect other fundamental rights. The reason we open trials to the press is to ensure that the defendant’s rights are protected. It seems silly to talk about the “rights” of the press - the press only exists to provide a public good and those “rights” should be restricted whenever the public interest dictates.
Yes, lets hurt innocent people because i disagree with someone! And then we can blow up kittens because i don’t like Bush’s tax cuts! take that, Fluffy!:rolleyes:
Otto you have a common case of “people who disagree with me must be wrong itis”. This disease is rampant on the internet and as such The most common cure is to push real hard on both knees until you hear a “pop” sound. This is your head clearing your anus.
-
There are still free speech issue being argued here as well as freedom of press issues.
-
The issue of freedom of the press was being covered well enough. Although not by you as you were the last one to claim it was a first amendment issue. Spelling amendment correctly does not, apparently, enable one to know the contents.
-
Since, in this matter and to me, both issues are intertwined (as apparently your britches are) the first and the 6th (if indeed that is the one covering freedom of the press) I see no problem with adressing them both selectively or side by side.
-
The first part of my posting you quote speaks directly to the press issue while the second simply makes clear that I do not feel that the 1st is the main point. Basically opposing the cite made by Chula. Apparently some of us do think there are 1st issues to be discussed.
If you disagree with a post then respond to it with a point. Don’t think that negating it as irrelevant has any effect on people who read these boards. Because you may have reached a conclusion (fallacious or not) holds little to no beaing unless you support it with alternate ideas. Not attempt to discredit others by stating that “no one thinks that any more” when the evidence is to the contrary.
bad form, bad form. Even for the pit. If you wish to insult me then do so, don’t mix base insult with what you think is logic. It dillutes any possible point you may have to make and causes others to review anything valid you may have to say with a degree of skepticism that was not present before.
That’s all well and good, but we have no such standards in the U.S.
You argue from a false premise. Have you ever listened to Michael Savage? He espouses racism, misogyny, and homophobia on his radio show. No action has been or should be taken by the FCC.
No, I haven’t. How disheartening. My condolences.
What is the deal with that Savage guy? I listen to talk radio and have listened to him. The only thing that bothers me more than him about his show are the people that call in and agree with him. His whole thing about the 50’s being so great. He might as well just come out and say “And back then the coloreds knew their place.”. He always sounds on the verge of a dump too, like he is straining to join Elvis on the great throne in the sky. Screw that guy.
This guy is just a three trick pony so far as I can tell. Racist, Homophobia, and communists (which he considers liberals to be among).
I don’t consider him to be so much a mysongynist as he does not appear to hate women. He just has a very outdated concept of them.
I agree it’s unfortunate. Most disappointing is that he has a sizable enough audience to keep him on the air. Again, I just don’t think the government should get involved.
The previous post was directed to Larry Mudd.
To quote Savage directly:
“I’m beginning to think that women should be denied the vote. Their hormones rage; they are too emotional.”
I suppose you could call that merely outdated, but I suspect there’s more behind it.
Yes, I was wrong to say that. What I really should have said, was that I hope everyone who is ok with giving out the name of an alleged rape victim gets raped themselves. 'Specially Hannity. I hope HE gets gang ass raped AND bukake-ied by a bunch of communists. HA!
Jon
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zen101 *
**The news media is already prevented from disclosing the names of accused minors in order to protect them.
No, they are not. In Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979), SCOTUS ruled that a West Virginia law prohibiting publicatiuon of the names of juvenile defendants violated the 1st and 14th Amendments.
On the other hand…
Yes, I agree Tom Leykis is a scumbag, but isn’t there some good that can come of this? Maybe it would make money hungry groupies think twice about falsely accusing someone and ruining their reputation.
I know we should consider her an innocent victim ( as we should Kobe) until proven otherwise, but lets look at some reasons why Tom may think she’s full of it:
A few days before Kobe was charged, she was at a party allegedly bragging about Kobe’s anatomy.
Kobe is a young, good-looking, filthy rich NBA star with tons of groupies. Does he really need to rape anyone?
She’s 19 years old and doesn’t know why he would want her alone in his hotel room?
The media is all over the possibility that a man is accused of rape, why not any coverage at all of the woman he accuses of being a liar?
Like I said, I also think Tom is a scumbag, and I’m playing a little devil’s advocate here, but I do have to wonder how fair it is if she would maintain her anonymity, while his career, reputation, and relationships are on the line.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by x-ray vision *
**
A few days before Kobe was charged, she was at a party allegedly bragging about Kobe’s anatomy.
**
I head this as well, but I don’t know if it is hearsay or what. If true it could be pretty damning.
**
Kobe is a young, good-looking, filthy rich NBA star with tons of groupies. Does he really need to rape anyone?
**
Rape isn’t about sex generally speaking.
**She’s 19 years old and doesn’t know why he would want her alone in his hotel room?
**
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this isn’t like the Mike Tyson case where a girls was invited to a room socially. She works at this hotel and I think among her duties room service is included. This would involve going into a guest’s room as a matter of routine.
The media is all over the possibility that a man is accused of rape, why not any coverage at all of the woman he accuses of being a liar?
Why name either one? Does knowing someone is accused of a crime do anything good for society at large?
Diogenes, thank you for starting this thread.
It was my great (mis)fortune to meet Leykis in April of 2000. There is no doubt that he goes beyond the label of “ratings whore”, who will do anything to keep his precious job. He is a self-serving misanthrope of cosmic proportions. I honestly suspect (and whole-heartedly hope) that his sponsors will pull out en masse after this latest blemish on his already scarred reputation.
Even if he survives this media battle, he may not survive the war, if those reports of his three suicide attempts within the past five years are true. I can’t verify that, but if I had the miserable fortune to be him, then suicide seems pleasant by comparison.
I’ve been a Leykis fan for a long time, he speaks the truth.
If the victim were a man, his name would never have been covered up.
Personally I think that’s bull in most cases. If Kobe did do it, I don’t think it’s because he needs to control women, or is violent, I think it’s because he wanted sex.
I agree, it would be nice if neither of them were named; but the point is, Kobe was named from the start. Tom just evened things up.
OK, so she goes to his room because it’s her duty, and Kobe Bryant, a young man with everything going for him and a squeaky clean past, can’t control himself and rapes her thinking he’ll get away with this? I don’t buy it.
I’m still not saying I would have revealed her name if I were Tom, but I can see some reasons why he would out her.