6 ms·
You have unfortunately missed the point. If she allows herself to be put in jail, even for a "paltry 30 days" as you claim, it sets a dangerous precedent and gi
by photogrammetry 10y ago
You have unfortunately missed the point. If she allows herself to be put in jail, even for a "paltry 30 days" as you claim, it sets a dangerous precedent and gives the government and bureaucracy the power to determine what journalism is "balanced" and what journalism is unacceptable.
This conflicts directly with our First Amendment, which grants the people freedom of the press. It is not reasonable to give up and serve 30 days in jail for a false crime you have been charged with unconstitutionally.
You seem so nonchalant about the potential jailtime, since it's "so small." Have you ever heard this poem?
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
It does not matter at what scale this constitutional abuse occurs. That it is happening at all should be horrifying to you; have you seen what happens to government dissidents and journalists in 'civilized' countries like Russia and China?
- eddieh 10y agoI don't think I'm missing the point. You can't invoke a constitutional right for otherwise breaking the law. EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murderer would just need to say the murder was their performance art.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- photogrammetry 10y agoHave you read a single Supreme Court decision? Your entire comment is factually wrong.
- ebbv 10y agoYes you absolutely can. That's the point of freedom of the press being part of the First Amendment. Laws that would prevent the press from fulfilling its constitutional role lose out to the first amendment. Journalists are allowed to protect their sources, where the rest of us might be compelled in a court to testify. It doesn't give them blanket immunity from all laws, but it does provide them certain protections. This is a clear case where the state is overreaching. EDIT: > EDIT: I don't want to reply to everyone, but if you could invoke the first amendment in the way you all are arguing then every murder would just need to say the murder was their performance art. No. That is not remotely true. You're being ridiculous.
- icebraining 10y agoJournalists are allowed to protect their sources While that's the common perception, it's not clear at all: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-a-journalist-be-forced-to-reveal-confidential-sources https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-a-journalist-be-force...
- sitkack 10y agoLaws aren't absolute, they have to be put into context. You can absolutely invoke a constitutional right for breaking "a" law. "The law" isn't a single entity.
- stale2002 10y agoYou kind of can. The issue in this situation is selective enforcement. Were ALL the other protesters arrested and charge for the same crime? Or was it just her and a few others? If it was just her, then she is being targeted by the government, not because she broke the law, but because she made them look bad. It hinges on the motive of the arresting party.
- throwaway76543 10y agoI think you are indeed missing the point. Of course you can invoke a constitutional right as grounds for breaking a law. If Constitutional rights didn't trump laws they wouldn't be good for much of anything, would they? That is literally their entire purpose: To be invoked as justification for violating unconstitutional law. The salient question is whether this is a matter of restraint on speech or simply a matter of prosecuting her behavior independent of any related speech. There's a much longer discussion (or court case) to be had on this point. But as to the question of whether you can invoke a constitutional right to justify breaking the law? Absolutely, no question about it. Yes.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y agoUh... no you can't. The first amendment does not protect you from trespassing charges. The second doesn't protect you from bringing a gun into a court room. And so on.
- throwaway76543 10y agoThe first amendment absolutely can protect from a charge of trespassing, or from any other charge. We don't know if it will in this particular scenario, but speaking categorically? Yes, it can absolutely. A recent high profile example of trespass law clashing with the first amendment would be free speech zones. The Constitution constrains the construction and application of all laws. Every single one.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y agoNo, it cannot. Trespass is illegal. Trespassing because you want to speak on the property is still illegal.
- thyrsus 10y agoA quick search for "free speech zone court case" only found cases effectively upholding trespass law over free speech. To what court case or law are you referring?
- venomsnake 10y agoConstitution is above the law.
- eddieh 10y agoI think the constitution is the law. Right?
- photogrammetry 10y agoConstitution is above the law because it is not the law. It cannot be changed the same way that a law can; it doesn't go into the low-level things that laws generally do. In many ways it is a repository of meta-law. It defines the boundaries of laws and rights.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- photogrammetry 10y agoAgain, with your edit, you miss the point. You can invoke any amendment you want at any point in a legal defense; whether or not you win is a matter of how you justify it. Killing a person and calling it 'performance art' is a totally different type of case than what we have here.