Those eroding rights thingies
Apparently, there’s a notebook out there that was written by James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooter. The journal is supposed be full of nutty shit and Holmes gave it to his shrink who turned it over to police to warn them weeks before the shooting in Aurora that he might be a danger to the community. You’ve heard all about this journal, right? You haven’t? Well, gee, I wonder why. So the Aurora case is getting to be like the Tucson shooting case related to Gabby Giffords in which the police were also aware of the nutty behavior of Jared Loughner and did nothing about it.
But guess who is facing punishment over the notebook? A Fox reporter, Jana Winter, who reported the existence of the journal;
Winter is currently facing a jail sentence for refusing to reveal the sources who provided her with alleged Aurora shooter James Holmes’ notebook, which he had sent to a psychiatrist and which was “full of details about how he was going to kill people.” Holmes’ defense attorneys subpoenaed Winter to testify about who told her about the notebook and a Colorado judge has said that he will rule on April 10th whether Winter must reveal her source or face jail time for refusing to testify.
Winter’s dilemma should not just trouble just her colleagues at Fox News – it should trouble every single American who values the First Amendment, freedom of the press and the free exchange of dialogue between the media and those who supply journalists with information.
If I was a judge, I’d be more interested in whether or why the police ignored the psychiatrist’s warnings. But then that would highlight why we have shooters like Holmes among us – law enforcement either can’t or won’t enforce the laws that have already been written. that we don’t need more laws, we need committed prosecutors who are supposed to be advocating for the people not advocating for taking more of our rights away. of course, the First Amendment, which is supposed to protect Winters in this case, is just like the Second Amendment to these people – it’s for their convenience and can be waived when it become inconvenient to them.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Legal
This is absolutely nothing new. Reporters have regularly gone to jail rather than reveal their sources of information.
I’m more disturbed by the fact that the police knew about this than I am by the fact that Ms. Winter reported the existence of it.
Props to her for following the tradition of going to jail rather than squealing.
Yeah, I read about this stuff. There is a rather difficult shield law in AZ and if the defense was able to overcome it, then that’s the way it goes. The press always gets to scream bloody murder when one of their own has to choose between contempt and revealing a source but it engenders none of my sympathy. I’m sick of “well placed sources who asked not to be identified” and the like. Besides, the reporter (aside from the shield laws of 32 states) can no more refuse to answer without fear of penalty than you could if you were asked under oath, “Who told you that?” As a matter of fact, I am altogether sick of the special treatment received by media types.
My understanding is that the notebook was not turned over to police until after the shootings.
Also psychiatrists are generally prohibited from revealing anything their patients say to the authorities under penalty of losing their licenses to practice. The only exception I can think of is the “Tarasoff rule” where, if a patient reveals an intention to harm a specific person, the psych has a legal duty to notify that person, but AFAIK a generalized intent to “harm” people is not, by itself, a valid reason to violate doctor/patient privilege.
There are probably exceptions to the general rule but the rule itself is very restrictive on what a psychiatrist can reveal, which is virtually nothing.
I think the crux of the issue is that the “source” is a law enforcement officer, which muddies the waters a bit. It’s gonna get ugly, but word on the street is that FOXNEWS has a legal team digging its heals in to support Ms.Winter. At least she’s not twisting in the breeze.
maybe submitting to the district attorney would be better?
A reporter writes a purportedly factual account of an unnamed military man’s exploits. We read it and scream “BS!” We ask that the reporter ID the subject but…crickets. Next, the reporter is subpoeaned to appear in court to identify the subject of the account because, if true, the subject may have committed serious crimes. The reporter appears, is directed by a judge to answer, refuses to do so, and is jailed for contempt. Is that reporter to be applauded?
OK, I understand the dislike of unnamed sources, but if someone tells you that he knows something bad is going to happen and is afraid of being revealed, do you give him away and take a chance on his being harmed, or do you simply pass on the information? I know of business people in the Chicago, including an auto dealer, who were hit by extortion from the so-called Chicago Outfit in the 1970s, who gave their information to the police, who in turn informed the media without releasing the victims’ names.
In this administration, there is a perception of vengeful behavior coming from the top. If I thought something important needed to be made public I’d ask not to release my name.
Haven’t heard a peep about this from any of the lame stream media outlets. Apparently during the 8 years President Bush was in office it was ok to leak national security secrets because freedom of the press repeatedly without punishment, but heaven forbid some crazy asshole’s journal is leaked.
I don’t understand the world any longer. Every day it makes less and less sense to me.
@6 Yes the reporter is to be applauded. This to me is that worst case scenario where supporting the freedom of speech is difficult when the speech is onerous or when the speech is obstructive as in the case of refusing to reveal a source. If the government can restrict the free flow of information from a private source to the people via a reporter, then the government can in effect control speech. Compelling reporters to reveal sources could be easily abused by prosecutors, I don’t trust the government very much and in this area I trust them about as much as I do regarding the second amendment which is to say I trust them not at all.
Holmes shipped the notebook to the psychiatrist but it wasn’t discovered in the mail room until days after the shooting.
She did report him to the police as homicidal, as required by law, then they did nothing.
martin–not true. If a person expresses a specific desire to harm someone or themselves, they can and have been involuntarily committed until such time as they have been determined not to be a threat.
IOW, someone who goes up to a shrink and says, “I’m gonna hurt myself” is someone who is probably going to end up getting help, whether they wanted it or not.
This thing about rights is not something inconsequential. Most of us here understand that concept. They are all important and they have more or less the same amount of importance.
Left a clue over there for Sen McCain, should he show up to gain understanding, but the same applies here. Our right to free expression is what protects the rest of the rights and gives us the ability to communicate any violations of them. The right to bear arms is what protects that speech thingy and all the rest of our rights. Without those two, we would not long have the rest.
True story. A man is accused of killing a 7-year-old girl and a reporter interviews him in jail. The reporter’s story includes the info that the accused confessed to the killing during the interview. As a result of the newspaper article, the reporter is subpoenaed to testify at the trial. The reporter refuses to do so, claiming privilege.
True story. A LEO is killed and a newspaper receives a letter reportedly from the killer and his newspaper publishes it. The paper’s editor is subpoenaed to turn over the letter to prosecutors but refuses to do so.
True story. A reporter wrote very negative stories about a large waste removal company and it was alleged that the reporter was paid other than by the paper to write the ugly stuff. The reporter refused to identify his sources for the stories.
I have a slew of such stories. It is said that hard cases make bad law. But between the gov’t and the media, it’s a toss-up as to which I trust less.
@11: No, we’re talking about apples and oranges here. If a doctor believes a person to be a risk to himself or others, he can have that person committed for an involuntary mental health hold, but the specifics of what the patient said to the psychiatrist are still privileged. Involuntary mental holds are usually limited to 72 hours and anything beyond that almost always requires an adversarial procedure and a court order from a judge.
Of course, one of the things a psychiatric professional has to contend with is the fact that the only way psychiatry works is if the patient trusts the doctor. If the patient is afraid that what he says to the doctor might get him committed, then he’s likely to not say those things and therefore frustrate the process of treating him. So most psychiatrists would be loathe to actually request that someone be committed – they’d rather leave that up to someone eles (like the police.)
Opinion: we have had the constitution for more than 200 years, we till use it, and it still works.
Opinion: Me and mine have been slightly abused by the press but, for all of its faults, I cannot think of a press system I would like better. In an effort to avoid being publicly and accurately quoted, I avoid speaking to the press.
The court will put a stake in the ground for Jana Winter. There will be various opinions (see below). So make a choice … would you prefer that she keep quiet and protect her source or that she reveal her source? Which decision in more “in the public interest” and why?
I know that all you sharpshooters out there would prefer a target, so here is a Q with a melon on top. I think that she should keep quiet. We know who the shooter is, at this point we are just trying to learn the facts. It does not serve the public to get some cop fired because he talked too much. The judge’s feelings are hurt because he couldn’t command silence. It seems to me that there was no intent to harm by the party who released the information or negligence by the “authorities” who did not act soon enough. On balance the conflicting capabilities and requirements for the doctor, cops, and court created the friction. The public release of the information won’t prevent the jury from making a good decision.
Ladies and gentlemen, your target is clear, you have the range, lock and load one 30-round magazine and light ‘er up!