The War on Information

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's evidence.

And? Is she supposed to be put in jail for doing her job?

No, she's going to be put in jail for refusing to comply with a lawful ruling from a court.

Look, the last thing ANYONE wants is Holmes getting off on a technicality because this dumb bimbo screwed up evidence.

The correct answer.

 

[Camp]

If she refuses to cooperate, yes. Let them try the guy first, then she can do as she wants.

He has already been tried and convicted. The revelation of this notebook may or may not have contributed to the conviction of James Holmes. I mean, the dead bodies littered all over the theater floor that night should have proved enough to try him as well as DNA and fingerprinting done at the crime scene. He would have been convicted by pure forensics alone.

Who has already been tried and convicted?

Maybe we need a war on misinformation

 

[mudwhistle]

Does the accused's rights to a fair trial trump a reporter's privilege to protect sources?

Pretty much.

If a reporter were to get a confession from Obama for every crisis he's caused in the last 5 years wouldn't you want the reporters right to protect that information to trump Darrel Issa's demands for a release of that evidence?

 

[Vox]

Not my fault she is more interested in getting a story than doing the right thing.

and what is "the right thing" here? crucifying the innocent womn doing her job for the fame and fortune of the scumbag lawyer?

she is a reporter, not a lawyer - how could she possible predict that her story would be used by the sleazy lawyers ( how one can possibly defend such a crime) which would aim to put an innocent reporter behind bars for the murderer to walk free.
Lawyers used to have standards. Now it is all about "me" - I bet those lawyers could not care less about anybody murdered in that theater, but they do care about their fame - if they invent a technicality and make it work for the killer to go free - that's their fame and money.

how could possibly the material published by the reporter interfere with a "fair trial"? in a mind of the scum lawyer only.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's evidence.

And? Is she supposed to be put in jail for doing her job?

Your ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Your lack of an argument isn't either.

 

[Vox]

Not my fault she is more interested in getting a story than doing the right thing.

Yeah, just like it's not my fault you like to censor the news.

What "News" did she actually discover here?

That Holmes was Crazy? We know that.

we know NOW, we didn't when she published the story

What did she find that enhanced the public's understanding of this case one iota?

everything. the story was published couple of days after the massacre - nobody knew anything at that time. It was NEWS.

But polluting the jury pool, to the point where the guy can have years of appeals, yeah, she's totally all over that.

BULLSHIT. Jury pool was started to be assembled much later and anybody just hearing about the massacre is unfit for the trial - it does not matter WHAT MATERIAL they have read. They have to be sterile in order to fit.
so this is absolutely manufactured trick by a scumbag lawyer in order to try to get Holmes off the hook

 

[The T]

"When you control the mail, you control information." - Newman.

Old hat since the advent of the internet. NEWMAN never saw it coming either, did he?

 

[Vox]

and the only reason you are attacking the reporter is that she works for Fox.

Would she be working for MSNBC all you rabid attackers and defenders of Holmes would praise her professional job.

How predictable

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

What "News" did she actually discover here?

That Holmes was Crazy? We know that.

That he was able to get a gun much too easily. Oh, no, wait you guys don't want to discuss that.

What did she find that enhanced the public's understanding of this case one iota?

But polluting the jury pool, to the point where the guy can have years of appeals, yeah, she's totally all over that.

Me thinks that she might have to revile that she made all of this stuff up.

 

[JoeB131]

Does the accused's rights to a fair trial trump a reporter's privilege to protect sources?

Pretty much.

If a reporter were to get a confession from Obama for every crisis he's caused in the last 5 years wouldn't you want the reporters right to protect that information to trump Darrel Issa's demands for a release of that evidence?

But... But... but... OOOOOOOBama!!!!!

Muddy, you really need to see someone about your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

The guy is going to be president for the next three years. Deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, just like it's not my fault you like to censor the news.

What "News" did she actually discover here?

That Holmes was Crazy? We know that.

we know NOW, we didn't when she published the story

Um, no, we kind of knew he was when they caught him DRESSED UP AS THE FUCKING JOKER!!!!

What did she find that enhanced the public's understanding of this case one iota?

everything. the story was published couple of days after the massacre - nobody knew anything at that time. It was NEWS.

Again, I think you don't understand the facts of the case, but that's okay.

But polluting the jury pool, to the point where the guy can have years of appeals, yeah, she's totally all over that.

BULLSHIT. Jury pool was started to be assembled much later and anybody just hearing about the massacre is unfit for the trial - it does not matter WHAT MATERIAL they have read. They have to be sterile in order to fit.
so this is absolutely manufactured trick by a scumbag lawyer in order to try to get Holmes off the hook

You mean that manufactured trick where he's entitled to a defense and entitled to know where accusations against him are coming from?

I think they call that "the constitution", something you wingnuts are all for when it comes to the right of crazy people to get guns to start with.

 

[Freewill]

Not my fault she is more interested in getting a story than doing the right thing.

Yeah, just like it's not my fault you like to censor the news.

What "News" did she actually discover here?

That Holmes was Crazy? We know that.

That he was able to get a gun much too easily. Oh, no, wait you guys don't want to discuss that.

What did she find that enhanced the public's understanding of this case one iota?

But polluting the jury pool, to the point where the guy can have years of appeals, yeah, she's totally all over that.

What "news" do you expect to glean from the note book? Maybe it will reveal that Homes is crazy and thus get him off of his murder convictions?

We are much better off failing on the side of a free reporting then the side that seems to be the side of this government, suppression of reporters who do not toe the line. I seriously think that if the Pentagon papers were revealed today the our come would be much different today then it was then.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, just like it's not my fault you like to censor the news.

Again, the OP succeeds only in exhibiting his ignorance, as there is no ‘censorship’ or ‘war on information,’ whatever that idiocy is supposed to mean.

From last August:

New York-based reporter Jana Winter lost another round Tuesday in her battle to protect her confidential sources for a story about Aurora theater shooting suspect James Holmes.

A New York state appeals court upheld a lower court's decision to enforce a Colorado subpoena that could force Winter to reveal the names of her sources or go to jail.

Colorado needs the approval of New York judges to enforce the subpoena.

Fox reporter Jana Winter loses round over source in James Holmes case - The Denver Post

The reporter is of course entitled to due process and the right to appeal, that’s not at issue.

But once any further appeals are exhausted and due process served, and the reporter is in the end instructed to provide the required information, she is compelled to do so in accordance with the law.

And this process in no way constitutes ‘censorship’ or an ‘attack’ on a free press.

 

[editec]

I support the reporter in this case.

 

[BlindBoo]

If she refuses to cooperate, yes. Let them try the guy first, then she can do as she wants.

He has already been tried and convicted. The revelation of this notebook may or may not have contributed to the conviction of James Holmes. I mean, the dead bodies littered all over the theater floor that night should have proved enough to try him as well as DNA and fingerprinting done at the crime scene. He would have been convicted by pure forensics alone.

Who has already been tried and convicted?

Nobody.

James Holmes' 1st Statements To Police Can Be Used In Court: Judge

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Does the accused's rights to a fair trial trump a reporter's privilege to protect sources?

It's a freedom of the press issue, and if Winter has to turn over her notes, other journalists will be compelled not only to turn over material from sources but also turn over notes on their assignments through any precedent this case would set.

How can you then differentiate between sources and any information gathered by reporters? Holmes impersonal journal doesn't qualify him as a "source."

 

[Abishai100]

Disclosure: Inkwell

The modern cauldron of information disclosure is related to our global culture of communication-themed mercantilism (i.e., eTrade).

Our parents watched pillow-talk movies such as "The Diary of Anne Frank" (1959), but we watch megaphone movies such as "Celebrity" (1998).

It's all about publication and publicity. The real demons are those who dissuade healthy dialogue.