Posted on 03/01/2009 4:50:47 AM PST by Man50D
A judge in one of the nation's most brutal carjacking and murder cases has openly questioned in court whether news websites – such as those covering his trial – should be permitted to allow open and anonymous "comments" sections at the bottom of Internet-posted stories.
"I'm saying if there is a profit, there is a responsibility that goes with it," said Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner of Knox County, Tenn., to an attorney for the Knoxville News Sentinel.
"This is not the Internet. This is a site created by you in which you invite comments," the judge stated. "This is something you control."
Richard Hollow, the newspaper's attorney, argued that a court-imposed policy on the "comments" sections would be an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment free speech rights.
"What the court is asking us to do is … set up a board of censorship," Hollow said.
The legal wrangling is part of the trial of five suspects charged in the January 2007 carjacking, rape and murder of Channon Christian, 21, and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, 23, in Knoxville, Tenn.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The judge is an idiot and should be thrown off the case and lose his position as judge. Censor that you f’ing jerk!
..therefore, he proposes to suppress the truth.
I second that, hey Judge BUMgartner?!?!
Up yours, ya f—kin’ Nazi!
Maybe the judge should spend a little time surfing the internet for some education.
The plethora of filth, hate, and desensitizing gore is nothing less than shocking and shameful.
If there is to be *ANY* censorship of the internet, it should start with incitements to murder and genocide, gratuitous sexual content, and “snuff” videos, including those posted by the Jihadi savages.
Remember, this is the case that forever established the principle that white people can not be the victims of hate crimes.
So here are my questions for the judge:
1. What's the operative law or legal precedent, if any, that would warrant control of verbal commentary?
2. What's the compelling state interest, if any, in controlling such commentary?
It seems to me that the private-property argument mitigates for a free-speech interpretation, rather than against it.
And that's just the home page at DU.
"This is not the Internet. This is a site created by you in which you invite comments,"
Huh?
> And that’s just the home page at DU.
:)
That’s among the reasons that I *NEVER* visit that site
If the cities ignite, will Obama’s 9/08 “get in their face” command mean anything?
This isn’t so cut and dried. I think cases like these need to be viewed, cases by case.
More from the article:
The legal wrangling is part of the trial of five suspects charged in the January 2007 carjacking, rape and murder of Channon Christian, 21, and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, 23, in Knoxville, Tenn.
As WND reported, five defendants face nearly 50 counts of kidnapping, robbery, gang-rape, murder and theft charges after Christian and Newsom were abducted, assaulted and tortured repeatedly over a period – probably of days – before being shot and killed.
Details in the aftermath of the slayings were not widely released, leading to a flurry of speculation – much of it unfounded – on the grisly details of the crime.
Internet “comment” sections also became a hotbed of discussion with particularly racial themes, as the victims were white and alleged perpetrators black.
Allowing anonymous, irresponsible comments to be published online, the petition argues, contaminates the jury and violates defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial.
An attorney for WBIR-TV, which along with the News Sentinel is specifically named in the petition, argued that the “comments” sections of their websites constitute a “giant bulletin board,” and as such is protected by the First Amendment.
This is a perfect example showing how sometimes protecting the rights of one group can infringe upon the rights of another.
What if we didn’t have the internet? What if people sent post cards through the mail to each other about the case? Would he want the cards screened?
I thought it was the judge's FaceBook page.
The judge is afraid the jurors will be influenced by the TRUTH! Judge and defense attorney: There is no Constitutional right for the accused to have STUPID, IGNORANT jurors!
Hey, where’s Jesse and Al? Oh yea—that’s only perceived white on black injustice like Duke La Crosse players. If any black thugs maime and kill whites, it’s just an ordinary crime by boyz in the hood who were misunderstood. I’m sick of this crap.
That's exactly what they are complaining about. The court of public opinion (the comments) are jeopardizing the court of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.