# Seattle Judge rewrites the 1st ammendment! **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 20, 2002, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seattle-judge-rewrites-the-1st-ammendment/115148 "2002-06-20T22:22:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![zen101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c68b51/32.png) [@zen101](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zen101)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seattle-judge-rewrites-the-1st-ammendment/115148/1 "2002-06-20T22:22:53Z")
What I’m talking about is described here: [http://www.freepaultrummel.com/](http://www.freepaultrummel.com/) So who can help get this judge under a heat lamp for a few months? I have contacted my local news agencys, can I get an assist from my fellow Dopers? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seattle-judge-rewrites-the-1st-ammendment/115148/2 "2002-06-20T22:52:33Z")
You know he’s out, right? As of Tuesday. More balanced local reports, setting forth both sides, can be found [here](http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=trummel18m&date=20020618&query=%22paul+trummel%22), [here](http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=trummel06m0&date=20020606&query=%22paul+trummel%22), and [here](http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=website03m&date=20011003&query=%22paul+trummel%22). ---
**Author:** ![zen101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c68b51/32.png) [@zen101](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zen101)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seattle-judge-rewrites-the-1st-ammendment/115148/3 "2002-06-20T23:14:42Z")
Jodi: No doubt the old man is a putz for making public trhe private information of his co-residents. What I take exception to is the wording the judge used in this case which could set precident if left unchallenged. Basically he stated that because Mr Trummel is not a full time employee of a larger news service that he is not entitled to 1st amendment protections. Mr Trummel’s issue should never have been connected with freedom of speach issues by the judge. As a harassment issue it is clear cut, the information needs to come down (IMHO), but the jude made a terrible mistake in this statement: “It is my finding specifically that his claim to be a journalist is a bogus claim insofar as he has no useful journalistic purpose. He is not employed by anyone but himself. There is no publisher involved. There is merely the misguided use of an obviously well-developed talent.” (James Doerty. Judge) By declaring a journalist must have an obvious usefull purpose he is making a descision as to the nature of our freedoms of speech. This is what I have a problem with. Jail Trummel on some other charge, but this charge is bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2002, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seattle-judge-rewrites-the-1st-ammendment/115148/4 "2002-06-21T01:00:35Z")
What about a person’s right to privacy? I certainly would not want MY social security number, address and such splashed across the web! ---
**Author:** ![zen101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c68b51/32.png) [@zen101](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zen101)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2002, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seattle-judge-rewrites-the-1st-ammendment/115148/5 "2002-06-21T01:16:17Z")
Thats a seperate argument from defining a freelancer as a non-journalist. I thought I’d made this clear? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2002, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seattle-judge-rewrites-the-1st-ammendment/115148/6 "2002-06-21T02:51:47Z")
**Jodi** - are the judgments in this case available anywhere on the net? I"m interested in reading them, but I’m not very good at finding sources for state decisions on the net. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2002, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seattle-judge-rewrites-the-1st-ammendment/115148/7 "2002-06-21T05:20:28Z")
ZEN, you cannot isolate the issue of the complainants’ right to privacy from Mr. Trummel’s right to free speech. They are competing interests in this case, which the judge had to rule on and between. Unless you are simply objecting to the judge’s definition of “journalist” and have no other problem with the ruling? Because frankly that’s a total non-issue in the case. PIPER, you can read the judge’s ruling [here](http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/rulings/trummel_v_mitchell.htm). Note that he specifically ruled > [@](#): > > [Trummel’s] alleged press credentials have never been admitted into evidence. The Court held that Mr. Trummel’s claim to be a bona fide representative of the press was bogus. **That does not mean that freelance journalists are not protected by the press clause of the First Amendment but that Mr. Trummel’s activities are not protected by his alleged press card. It is a discussion that is neither here nor there. Even if Mr. Trummel was a salaried employee of a world class newspaper and the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, he would not be able to behave the way he behaved** [.] The web site ZEN links makes some legitimate arguments and some that are less so: The judge said the free speech and free press provisions of the constitution are in different clauses; they’re not, they’re in the same one. You can decide for yourself how important a mistake that is. Further, the web site says that the judge’s citation to the Washington constitution meant he thought the state constitution trumped the U.S. constitution. That’s a misreading of the opinion. State constitutions cannot limit the rights granted by the U.S. constitution. They can, however, _expand_ those rights. You can have a greater right to privacy, for example, under a state constitution than you do under the federal constitution. And that was the judge’s point regarding the Washington constitution – not that it superceded the U.S. constitution on the issue of _freedom of the press_ but that it offered greater protection on the issue of _right to privacy_. There’s no question the order is written with a palpable air of impatience and asperity. But I suggest anyone wondering about the realities of this case read it in their entirety, as it is pretty clear about who this guy is and the damage he’s done (and strives to continue to do) in the name of “journalism.” Believe me, he’s doing know favors to what is IMO an old, honorable and (in America, at least) extremely important profession. Oh, and parenthetically – this order has no precedential value, since it is interlocutory, not published, and non-appellate court decisions are not binding on any other judge or court. I understand the case has been appealed, however, so the decision of the appellate court, if any, would be precedent (though not binding) for cases following after it.