1st AmENDMENT PROTECTION - FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

 

Freedom of the press in the United States

Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment is generally understood to prevent the government from interfering with the distribution of information and opinions.

It was ruled for the first time,[17][18] by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,[19] that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protection as a journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.[20] In the decision, journalists and bloggers are equally protected under the First Amendment[17] because the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story."[19]:11–12[21]

Why the Press Can Publish Any Classified Material It Likes

Reposted from the Atlantic

Justice Hugo Black explained it in his 1971 opinion in New York Times v. United States.

In 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black set forth his views on the press and its ability to publish classified information whether the government likes it or not. He did so during debate about whether the New York Times and Washington Postcould be stopped from publishing leaked, classified Vietnam War documents. His full opinion in New York Times v. United States is online, and here are his words slightly condensed, with my emphasis added throughout. 

Black's words are important to consider in the debate over who ought to have the final say on whether secret information is revealed, which I wrote about elsewhere here today. Black was right.

* * *

I adhere to the view that the Government's case against the Washington Postshould have been dismissed, and that the injunction against the New York Timesshould have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented to this Court .... Every moment's continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment ... It is unfortunate that some of my Brethren are apparently willing to hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined. Such a holding would make a shambles of the First Amendment.

The Government Isn't Very Good at Deciding What to Keep Secret

Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.

In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly.

Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press ...." Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do. 

 

Now, Mr. Justice [BLACK], your construction of ... [the First Amendment] is well known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that "no law" does not mean "no law," and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true .... [T]here are other parts of the Constitution that grant powers and responsibilities to the Executive, and ... the First Amendment was not intended to make it impossible for the Executive to function or to protect the security of the United States.

And the Government argues in its brief that, in spite of the First Amendment,

[t]he authority of the Executive Department to protect the nation against publication of information whose disclosure would endanger the national security stems from two interrelated sources: the constitutional power of the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

We are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment's emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of "national security."

The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to "make" a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law. To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.

The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes—great man and great Chief Justice that he was—when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.

The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.

 In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Madison said:

[B]ut I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution] disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against the encroachments on particular rights ....

Congressman Goodhue added:

[I]t is the wish of many of our constituents that something should be added to the Constitution to secure in a stronger manner their liberties from the inroads of power.

The other parts were:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

Compare the views of the Solicitor General with those of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment. When speaking of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Madison said:

If they [the first ten amendments] are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.

 

Submit an Estate Theft Offender Profile

  1. Send us an email to register and correspond with to an Estate Theft Consultant (ETC):  Email Contact
  2. Submit your priority 1, 2, 3, or 4 evidence to our organization. We will assist you with this,
  3. Once your information is received by an ETC it will go through an evidence submission Vet process,
  4. The Vet process consists of both a manual and automatic cross-reference pattern recognition (CRPR) system to identify  and correlate  organized civil tort and criminal  patterns,
  5. Also a risk analysis to quantify the future for additional tort or criminal violations will be calculated based on established patterns,
  6. After the first Vet process and the initial phase 1 CRPR analysis is complete a consultant from our organization will become you assistant and help you with the following phases.
  • Please note we are not attorneys and our commentary services are not recommended as any substitute fro professional legal advice. We ar an educational support group of victims whom help provide guidance to estate theft and vulnerable adult abuse victims. Our primary mission is to track offenders. gather evidence, establish profiles of offender tort and criminal evaluations and when necessary pass that to the proper authorities. We also provide contact resources, educational information, support forms and other services which are explained after completion of the initial Vet process.
  • II. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING FOR ESTATE THEFT INFORMATION IN ALL US STATES AND CROSS BORDER ESTATES WITH ASSETS IN CANADA. PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING STEPS TO REGISTER AND START SUBMITTING EVIDENCE:

  • In order for us to provide you with assistance in States other than the Northwest US states  we require at least two offenders whom have developed an estate theft vet and CRPR match profile.
  1. Send us an email to register and correspond with to an Estate Theft Consultant (ETC):  Email Contact
  2. Submit your priority 1, 2, 3, or 4 evidence to our organization. We will assist you with this,
  3. Once your information is received by an ETC it will go through an evidence submission Vet process,
  4. The Vet process consists of both a manual and automatic cross references pattern recognition (CRPR) system to identify  and correlate  organized civil tort and criminal  patterns,
  5. Also a risk analysis to quantify the future for additional tort or criminal violations will be calculated based on established patterns,
  6. After the first Vet process and the initial phase 1 CRPR analysis is complete a consultant from our organization will become you assistant and help you with the following phases.

ESTATE THEFT IS EPIDEMIC  - TOGETHER WE CAN STOP THEM

3 CURRENT NORTH IDAHO EXAMPLES

SEE CASE SUMARY DETAILS BELOW
• The Shank Estate
• THE G ESTATE
• THE L ESTATE

Read More

The Same PERPETRATORS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF VULNERABLE PERSONS

Predatory Adult Children

Caretakers

Power of Attorneys (POA)

Vulnerable Person's Attorneys

Guardians & Conservators

Doctors In Collusion

Banks In Collusion

Investment Managers In Collusion

Read More

THE SAME CRIMES WITH REPEATING PATTERNS AND RESULTS

FRUAD

THEFT

MISREPRESENTATION

COLLUSION

Read More

VULNERABLE ADULTS & INNOCENT FAMILY ARE THE VICTIMS

Venge Estate Theft Project – North Idaho & Eastern Washington

All cases involve organized crime, often by the same attorneys and doctors in each case. Other estate victims are also effected.  

Each case also involves misrepresentation in document reports and chicanery in Family TEDRA agreements. 

IS YOUR FAMILIES ESTATE NEXT ?

DON'T LET IT HAPPEN TO YOUR FAMILY CONTACT US FIRST BEFORE YOU HIRE AN ESTATE PLANNING ATTRONEY

TO MAKE SURE YOU DONT GET ABUSED BY THE SAME CURRUPT ATTORNEYS & DOCTORS

 

THE S ESTATE

CHICANERY IN ESTATE DRAFTING DOCUMENTS IS COmMON PATTERN.

This case is ongoing after more than 10 years it involves litigation in two states Washington and Idaho . Litigation Across two generations and substantial attorney and guardianship court determined crimes and contradicting biased medical examinations. This case also involves misrepresentation in document reports and chicanery in TEDRA agreements.

Every Fraud and MIsrepresentation Scenario is Unique But they Follow Similar Repeating Patterns. Together these Cases are RICO.

THE G ESTATE

This is a clear case of undue influence documented and confirmed by a world leading undue influence expert. This case set a dangerous and one-sided Idaho Supreme Court precedent and therefore allows serious aspects of undue influence and elder abuse to be sanctioned by Idaho Courts. This case also involves misrepresentation in estate documents, doctor's evaluations and chicanery in TEDRA agreements.

THE L ESTATE

This is an ongoing highly contests guardianship and conservator ship case involving rarely documented factual recorded evidence of undue influence which clearly demonstrated attorney and caretakers-POA- trustee acting in concert using fraud and chicanery in the estate documents to deco eve the vulnerable adult-testatrix and transfers unstinting assets in the estate the family caregiver. There is substantial evidence of IC 18 1505 exploitation, negligence and abuse. Collusion of fraud, misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment is also a repeating pattern as is misrepresentation in doctor’s reports.

JOIN OUR ESTATE THEFT VICTIMS  AWARNESS & SUPPORT GROUP

We are Seeking Additional Members for the Current Venge Project – North Idaho & Eastern Washington

• All family estate sizes victims welcome,

• Organized "white collar" criminal network prefers to focus on on Multi-Million Dollar Estates transferring millions to perpetrators.

• Each Estate Involves a Vulnerable Elder/Incapacitated Person or Victim Whom retained services of organized White Collar Criminal,

• Each Estate involved Fraud, MIsrepresentation, Fraudulent Concealment, Rigged Doctors Evaluations, Cover ups and Collusion.

• Each of these Cases involved combination the same Attorneys, Doctors, Banks, G/C's and Appointed Court Representatives.

• Each Estate Theft caused devastating effects to multiple Injured Parties including elders and other vulnerable Persons,

• Each Estate involved Multiple $100,000 to Litigate and Substantial Damages.

TOGETHER WE CAN STOP THEM

LEARN THE ESTATE PLANNING ATTORNEYS ESTATE THEFT TRICKS

CHICANERY IN ESTATE DRAFTING DOCUMENTS:

Clandestine Changes in the POA's while the Elder is Impaired, Ill and Confused

Illicit Trust Clauses That Transfer Assets Through Tactic Evolving Trust Versions

Tactic Biased Doctor's Capacity/Incapacity Evaluations

Every Fraud and MIsrepresentation Scenario is Unique But they Follow Simile Repeating Patterns

Undue Influence IS thE FOUNDATIONAL CRIME

• Insidious Control Tactics Steals The Elder Persons Free Agency,
• Isolation From Long Trusted Family By Perpetrators,
• Family Perpetrators Acting In Concert With Elders Attorney,
ALL OF THESE CRIMES ARE REAL AND EPIDEMIC

WE KNOW THIER TRICKS AND METHODS WE CAN HELP YOU TO SPOT AND DOCUMENT THE ABUSE AND EXPLIOTATION

TOGETHER WE ARE PUBLIC POLICY

JOIN US AND WE CAN HELP EACH OTHER

If this is already happening In your family  - -  STOP THEM NOW !  How:

1) Read our online resources,

2) Learn The State and Federal Statutes of Your State,

2) Beware of the Signs. Document Everything,

3) Contact a "Estate Theft" Consultant Free of Charge,

4) CHECK THIS SITES RESOURCE PAGE CONTAINING THE REPOSITORY LIBRARY - Be Informed & Be Unified,

5) GET COMBAT READY WE WORK AS A TEAM TO STOP THE WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS STEALING FROM THE ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE PERSONS.

 

 

CONTACT AN ESTATE THEFT CONSULTANT "IT'S FREE"

CONSULTANTS ARE NOT ATTORNEYS

CONSULTANTS ARE ESTATE THEFT VICTIMS

WE HAVE BEEN IN YOUR SHOES AND HAVE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE

Our network of Injured Parties will stop their organized crime network of estate thief's.

Click Here For Direct Consultant Email