# Lawmaker does not understand first amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 8, 2015, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304 "2015-01-08T12:56:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@Fallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fallen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/21 "2015-01-08T16:30:07Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Does that mean he has to accept attempts to contact him from anyone who purports to be a political journalist? Can I follow him around, track his every move, attempt to interview him at his other place of work, at the dry cleaner, out to dinner, knock on his door whenever I please? > > I’m totally a Frederick County political blogger, and need to interview him about an important story. Depends on what you mean by “has to accept”. He’s free to block phone numbers, etc. He’s free to assert to (Maryland) police that the person is merely contacting him to “alarm, harass, annoy” and has no legal purpose for contacting him. If some dolt police officer chooses to take the complaint, typical protocol will be to call the accused and ensure that the person receives the “reasonable” request/demand to stop contact. Should the cop not care or know whether someone has a legal purpose to call (as in legitimate, v. it involving a “legal matter” such as debt collection), the cop can go to a district court commissioner and seek a statement of charges, which will doubtless be granted (the commissioners don’t particularly care about what the law indicates in terms of probable cause any more than the police). Then the local SAO will, if it chooses to proceed with prosecution, need to establish that the person doesn’t have a legal purpose for the (attempted) communication and did so with the _specific intent_ to annoy, harass or alarm. Depending on the county, a father can for instance be prosecuted for “harassing” a daughter about X-Y-Z if he continues to contact or write her after he’s been asked/told to stop. ---
**Author:** ![Fallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@Fallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fallen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/22 "2015-01-08T16:41:26Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Right. If the guy’s job is a public position, and thus he is a ‘newsmaker’, he has to accept being contacted by journalists. It’s part of his job. If he doesn’t like the job, he can quit. Of course he can always pull a Marshawn Lynch act and answer ‘Yeah’ or ‘Thank you for asking’ to every question. 😛 A minor quibble: ANYONE is subject to being contacted by a journalist but, yes, particularly public servants. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/23 "2015-01-08T17:04:54Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > But he’s a publicly elected official, and she’s a political reporter. If she’s going to do a story about something he said or did in public, don’t journalistic standards _require_ her to contact him to give him a chance to address the story she’s going to publish? Or should she just put “Kirby Delauter told me never to speak to him again” in every article about him? Sigh. Look, everyone this is very simple. 1. He gave an interview to a journalist. 2. That journalist “twisted and downright lied” about him. 3. He publicly denounced that one specific journalist for lying. 4. he stated that he would give that specific journalist no further interviews. 5. That journalist continued to harrass him 6. he warned that journalist that he would take legal action if she continued. 7. she then continued to twist and lie. It is obvious that she is in the wrong and he is in the right. I hope he does sue her and win. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/24 "2015-01-08T17:17:21Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Sigh. Look, everyone this is very simple. > > 1. He gave an interview to a journalist. > > 2. That journalist “twisted and downright lied” about him. > > 3. He publicly denounced that one specific journalist for lying. > > 4. he stated that he would give that specific journalist no further interviews. > > 5. That journalist continued to harrass him > > 6. he warned that journalist that he would take legal action if she continued. > > 7. she then continued to twist and lie. > > It is obvious that she is in the wrong and he is in the right. I hope he does sue her and win. Do you care to provide a link to the article where she originally “twisted and downright lied” about him? Or perhaps some evidence, other than his word (politicians being known for always being straightforward and forthright) that she “twisted and downright lied” about him? Or that her report that he is concerned about parking availability for elected officials is her continuing to"twist and lie"? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/25 "2015-01-08T17:17:39Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Sigh. Look, everyone this is very simple. > > 1. He gave an interview to a journalist. > > **2) That journalist “twisted and downright lied” about him.** > > 1. He publicly denounced that one specific journalist for lying. > > 2. he stated that he would give that specific journalist no further interviews. > > 3. That journalist continued to harrass him > > 4. he warned that journalist that he would take legal action if she continued. > > 5. she then continued to twist and lie. > > It is obvious that she is in the wrong and he is in the right. I hope he does sue her and win. [Here’s the original article.](http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/politics_and_government/shreve-raises-staffing-parking-concerns/article_0db3b44a-30ac-5582-b7b3-4cf00d0ded9e.html) It’s not even about The Unnamed Asshole. Here’s where He Who Shall Not Be Named Or Contacted was mentioned. > [@](#): > > Councilman Kirby Delauter, who is also a former commissioner, has joined Shreve in concern over parking for elected officials. Gardner has reserved three parking spots at Winchester Hall for council members, since the part-time officials will rarely all turn up simultaneously. Since you agree with Mr. Anonymous Ass, you must have his original statement so we can compare the two versions. ---
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/26 "2015-01-08T17:22:27Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Sigh. Look, everyone this is very simple. > > 1. He gave an interview to a journalist. > > 2. That journalist “twisted and downright lied” about him. > > 3. He publicly denounced that one specific journalist for lying. > > 4. he stated that he would give that specific journalist no further interviews. > > 5. That journalist continued to harrass him > > 6. he warned that journalist that he would take legal action if she continued. > > 7. she then continued to twist and lie. > > It is obvious that she is in the wrong and he is in the right. I hope he does sue her and win. Sigh. Look, everyone this is very simple. 1. Cite for the twisted and lied? ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/27 "2015-01-08T17:36:46Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Sigh. Look, everyone this is very simple. > 5) That journalist continued to harrass him > > 1. he warned that journalist that he would take legal action if she continued. > > 2. she then continued to twist and lie. > > It is obvious that she is in the wrong and he is in the right. I hope he does sue her and win. 5 - She wrote another article with his name in it. 1. - He said if the paper ever printed his name again, he’d sue. 2. - Paper published an editorial including his name several times. And Delauter responded to the paper, by the way, with [an apology and a retraction of his original facebook post](http://www.fredericknewspost.com/public/delauter-statement-to-the-news-post-threatening-lawyer-was-wrong/article_48b2a336-96b8-11e4-8c3f-63665634f9a3.html), so I doubt he’s going to sue anyone. > [@](#): > > Of course, as I am an elected official, the Frederick News-Post has the right to use my name in any article related to the running of the county – that comes with the job. So yes, my statement to the Frederick News-Post regarding the use of my name was wrong and inappropriate. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/28 "2015-01-08T17:45:02Z")
> [@leftfield6](#): > > Sigh. Look, everyone this is very simple. > > 1. Cite for the twisted and lied? She has certainly twisted and lied since the article. He told that one specific journalist that she specifically must not write about him without permission. She twisted and lied about that, claiming that he has forbidden everyone from even mentioning his name. I’m inclined to believe him. I have no doubt, given her proven lack of integrity, that her original statement was a distortion. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/29 "2015-01-08T17:48:28Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > She has certainly twisted and lied since the article. > > He told that one specific journalist that she specifically must not write about him without permission. She twisted and lied about that, **claiming that he has forbidden everyone from even mentioning his name.** > > I’m inclined to believe him. I have no doubt, given her proven lack of integrity, that her original statement was a distortion. And you think he wouldn’t try the same thing again if it worked this time? Anyway, **CITE**? ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/30 "2015-01-08T17:53:25Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > She has certainly twisted and lied since the article. > > He told that one specific journalist that she specifically must not write about him without permission. She twisted and lied about that, claiming that he has forbidden everyone from even mentioning his name. > > I’m inclined to believe him. I have no doubt, given her proven lack of integrity, that her original statement was a distortion. Where did she say that? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/31 "2015-01-08T17:53:37Z")
cite already given. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/32 "2015-01-08T17:54:47Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > Where did she say that? > **[Lawmaker’s Facebook rant threatens media for “unauthorized” use of his name](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/lawmakers-facebook-rant-threatens-media-for-unauthorized-use-of-his-name/)** > > The First Amendment: How does it work? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/33 "2015-01-08T17:58:24Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > [Lawmaker’s Facebook rant threatens media for “unauthorized” use of his name - Ars Technica](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/lawmakers-facebook-rant-threatens-media-for-unauthorized-use-of-his-name/) I see nothing there that she stated that his prohibition extended to all the media. And you still haven’t provided The Unamed Idiot’s original statements so we can compare. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/34 "2015-01-08T18:00:04Z")
And once again, here in the United States, no reporter has to get permission from any public official before putting their name in an article. Even if a person specifically demands that a particular reporter never mention their name or write it again, the reporter is under no legal requirement to respect that. Delauter himself has admitted he was wrong to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/35 "2015-01-08T18:06:33Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > I see nothing there that she stated that his prohibition extended to all the media. Lawmaker’s Facebook rant threatens media for “unauthorized” use of his name ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/36 "2015-01-08T18:07:03Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > [Lawmaker’s Facebook rant threatens media for “unauthorized” use of his name - Ars Technica](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/lawmakers-facebook-rant-threatens-media-for-unauthorized-use-of-his-name/) Would you like to try again, this time with a link that shows her saying: > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > She twisted and lied about that, claiming that he has forbidden everyone from even mentioning his name. ? ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/37 "2015-01-08T18:08:12Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Lawmaker’s Facebook rant threatens media for “unauthorized” use of his name You’re holding Bethany Rodgers accountable for a headline on an article written by David Kravets? ---
**Author:** ![Fallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@Fallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fallen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/38 "2015-01-08T18:09:10Z")
Delauter Quote: Of course, as I am an elected official, the Frederick News-Post has the right to use my name in any article related to the running of the county – that comes with the job. So yes, my statement to the Frederick News-Post regarding the use of my name was wrong and inappropriate. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong. * * * Hilarious that the dude believes this situation has a single damn thing to do with his being an elected official. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/39 "2015-01-08T18:09:42Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Lawmaker’s Facebook rant threatens media for “unauthorized” use of his name That’s the headline by Ars Technica. Not the journalist that K-Douche is having the feud with. You might try reading the article itself. ---
**Author:** ![Fallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@Fallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fallen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2015, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304/40 "2015-01-08T18:12:42Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > And once again, here in the United States, no reporter has to get permission from any public official before putting their name in an article. Even if a person specifically demands that a particular reporter never mention their name or write it again, the reporter is under no legal requirement to respect that. Delauter himself has admitted he was wrong to do so. To clarify, the freedom to (a) contact someone\*, or (b) refer to someone (publicly or privately) has nothing to do with whether the person is a public official. - (unless there is an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction saying otherwise) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawmaker-does-not-understand-first-amendment/709304.md?page=3)