Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Shouldnt. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Shouldnt. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 4, 2013

FREE PRESS FIGHT: Colo. Shouldn't Punish the Messenger, Attorney Says

Judges often issue gag orders to prevent parties from sharing information about a case with the public.

Outside of the courtroom, however, journalists search for reliable information. It is their duty to properly educate the public and the Constitution guarantees a free press.

Sometimes the two worlds -- courtroom and media -- collide when a journalist obtains exclusive information (that is potentially under a gag order) from a person in exchange for confidentiality. A journalist’s success (and personal safety) is greatly dependent on trustworthiness, on the guarantee that the journalist will keep the source’s identity under lock and key.

If we do not protect our messengers, journalists lose the most important element of their career: trustworthiness.

FoxNews.com reporter Jana Winter and her sources are at the center of just such a collision in a high profile case. Jana’s career is on the line because defense lawyers want a judge to force her to reveal where she got her exclusive information.

On July 20, 2012, a shooter launched an attack on moviegoers inside of a theatre in Aurora, Colorado. The alleged assailant, James Holmes, killed 12 and wounded an additional 58 people.

Aside from the location of the shooting, there was a second crime scene: Holmes' apartment. When authorities apprehended Holmes (within moments after his shooting), he said that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. Holmes was otherwise uncooperative.

There was also a third potential crime scene: The University of Colorado-Denver School of Medicine. Holmes had recently dropped out from the school and investigators believed he received shipments of explosives at its Aurora campus over a period of four months. Additionally, there was an immediate concern that Holmes also booby-trapped an area of the school.

People involved in the case made public statements. Just one day after the shooting, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates stated that the crime was carried out with“calculation and deliberation." He also said that Holmes’ apartment was “designed to kill.”

Even New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly also spoke publicly, stating that Holmes called himself "The Joker." A confidential law enforcement source confirmed Kelly’s statement with ABC News.

The amount of law enforcement officers involved in the investigation was enormous, and the FBI told ABC News that approximately 100 agents were assisting in the investigation. Certainly, an additional few hundred state and local officers were also involved.

Even though Holmes appeared in court within hours of his midnight shooting, it was not until July 23, 2012, that the first gag order was issued.

On July 24, CNN published information from an unnamed source regarding specific contents found inside of Holmes’ apartment: dozens of homemade grenades, gallons of gasoline, improvised explosive devices (IED's) and trip wires. The setup was similar to what is seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On or about July 24, Ms. Winter "learned that police had searched for and recovered" a notebook that Holmes sent to a psychiatrist. She investigated the "tip" and published an exclusive story on July 25.

Even though countless media reports were laden with confidential sources, Holmes’ defense team chose to solely target Ms. Winter and her sources as the sole violators of the gag order.

This defense tactic is not only an attack on Ms. Winter. It is an attack on our First Amendment and an attack on the public’s right to information when public safety is at issue.

Almost 40 years ago, in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that it is improper for the court to bar the press from publishing information about a criminal case. It is absurd that Holmes’ defense is wasting public money on such a frivolous matter.

With hundreds of investigators working on the case and hundreds of journalists publishing constant updates, Ms. Winter and her editors made the correct decision to share information that was in the public’s best interest. Holmes left his mark in numerous areas, many of which might have been a threat to public safety. Others could have been involved in carrying out his plans. This was not a small crime.

Ms. Winter must continue to fight against revealing who gave her confidential information, even if it means that she will be sentenced to jail for contempt of court. Ms. Winter was simply the messenger between her confidential sources and the public. If we do not protect our messengers, journalists lose the most important element of their career: trustworthiness.

Tamara Holder is an attorney and Fox News legal analyst. 


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 28 tháng 3, 2013

Justices raise doubt about Defense of Marriage Act- DR. ABLOW: Gov’t shouldn't sanction marriages

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will tackle a constitutional challenge to the law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples, the second of back-to-back gay marriage cases before the court this week. 

The justices will consider a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits, as part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The DOMA arguments follow a landmark hearing on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, during which several Supreme Court justices indicated they might lean toward issuing a narrow ruling. 

Lower federal courts have struck down the DOMA measure, and now the justices, in nearly two hours of scheduled argument, will consider whether to follow suit.

Marital status is relevant in more than 1,100 federal laws that include estate taxes, Social Security survivor benefits and health benefits for federal employees. Lawsuits around the country have led four federal district courts and two appeals courts to strike down the law's Section 3, which defines marriage.

 In 2011, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

The justices chose for their review the case of Edith Windsor, 83, of New York, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.

Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 in Canada after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.

There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero.

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

Like the Proposition 8 case from California, Windsor's lawsuit could falter on a legal technicality without a definitive ruling from the high court.

The House Republicans, the Obama administration and a lawyer appointed by the court especially to argue the issue were to spend the first 50 minutes Wednesday discussing whether the House Republican leadership can defend the law in court because the administration decided not to, and whether the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case because it changed its position and now argues that the provision is unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get her refund because she won in the lower courts. But there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court, and it would remain on the books.

On Tuesday, the justices weighed a fundamental issue: Does the Constitution require that people be allowed to marry whom they choose, regardless of either partner's gender?

If the justices choose to rule broadly, they could overturn Prop 8 and in doing so invalidate every other restriction on gay marriage in the country. 

But the justices suggested Tuesday they could decide the case without issuing a ruling that ripples through all 50 states.

Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts that the case was properly before them. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.

Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere. 

Click to listen to the Supreme Court arguments in the Prop 8 case

Kennedy said he feared the court would go into "uncharted waters" if it embraced arguments advanced by gay marriage supporters. But lawyer Theodore Olson, representing two same-sex couples, said that the court similarly ventured into the unknown in 1967 when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in 16 states. 

Kennedy challenged the accuracy of that comment by noting that other countries had had interracial marriages for hundreds of years. 

There was no majority apparent for any particular outcome and many doubts expressed about the arguments advanced by lawyers for the opponents of gay marriage in California, by the supporters and by the Obama administration, which is in favor of same-sex marriage rights. 

Chief Justice John Roberts told Olson that it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word "marriage" by including same-sex couples. 

Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Proposition 8 argued that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.

Americans as a whole are divided on the issue. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. 

That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 20 tháng 2, 2013

WHISTLE IF RAPED?Pol Hints Women Shouldn't Rely on Guns, Backtracks

A freshman Colorado lawmaker apologized Monday for suggesting during debate on gun control that a woman concerned about being raped should not be trusted with a gun -- but should instead use a whistle or call box.

Democratic state Rep. Joe Salazar said while his contentious comments might have come out wrong, he is sensitive to women's concerns. 

"I'm sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention," Salazar said in a statement to FOX31 in Denver. "We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don't believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I'm not sensitive to the dangers women face, they're wrong."

Salazar made his controversial remarks during a debate on the House floor Friday over a concealed-weapons ban on college campuses. In arguing in favor of the proposal, Salazar, the father of two daughters, said women don’t need guns on college campuses to feel safe.

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” he said. “Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

His remarks drew sharp criticism from female Republican lawmakers.

“My daughter’s going to be going off to college in about 10 years,” Rep. Lori Saine said. “I can’t imagine her only option’s going to be to outrun her attackers to a call box. I think she’s responsible enough to handle a gun.”

Salazar said he was trying to make a point about the potential for misidentifying someone and possibly shooting the wrong person, but some of his colleagues disagreed with the premise. 

“I’m sorry, a whistle and a call box are not going to help that woman on campus,” Rep. Polly Lawrence said, according to FOX31. 

Democratic House Speaker Mark Ferrandino stood by Salazar.

“Whatever his words may have been and however much those words are being taken out of context, he did the right thing to take responsibility,” Ferrandino said. 


View the original article here