Judge Apparently Thinks He Can Tell Newspaper Which Photos It Can Use
from the that-doesn't-seem-right... dept
Romenesko points us to the news that a judge is considering barring news organizations from showing photos of a handcuffed local legislator, Roger Corbin. Corbin was arrested on tax charges, and (not surprisingly), local news sources have shown photos of him in handcuffs. This seems both accurate and newsworthy. However, the judge seems to think that these photos could bias the jury, saying that it was "troubling" to him that the news organizations used the handcuffed photos rather than photos of Corbin back when he was an upstanding legislator. Of course, as the lawyer for the news organizations pointed out: "Courts do not get [into] telling the media what to publish." The judge then apparently compared the handcuff photos to child porn in explaining that the First Amendment wasn't absolute, and the gov't could restrain the use of certain photos (apparently skipping over the incredibly high barrier normally used to justify anything of that nature). The judge hasn't made a final decision yet, but even the fact that he's considering telling newspapers that they can't publish photos of a guy in handcuffs seems troubling.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: freedom of the press, journalism, newspapers, photos, roger corbin
Companies: news12, newsday
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reactionaries...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perp walk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Restraint, anyone????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Restraint, anyone????
So? What has he got to lose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prior Restraint, anyone????
So I'd say he could lose the respect of his peers, if he hasn't lost it already after pulling this stupid stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prior Restraint, anyone????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Restraint, anyone????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Restraint, anyone????
VRP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Restraint, anyone????
Furthermore, a ruling like this does not constitute "bad behavior." "Good behavior" generally refers to things such as murder, arson, rape, theft, etc. Of course, if Congress wanted to, they could impeach him for this; however, as I mentioned earlier, it would be unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Restraint, anyone????
An order to cease speech already taking place does not qualify as preemptive.
It's also kinda stupid because once it's out there, it's out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This judge clearly doesn't understand the First Amendment. If he does order the papers to stop printing these pictures, they have the right and the responsibility to ignore his ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about reverse prejuidicialness?
If newspapers only show positive photos of people who have been arrested (which is all the photo says, it doesn't say the person is guilty of anything) then would that prejudice the jury in favor of the defendant? Maybe they should show a photo of a before and after shot to even things out and be "fair" to all?! Newspapers aren't in the "fair" business. They report accurately (we hope) the history of the days events and let others be the judges and commentators of history. Newspapers are about facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
judge needs common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: judge needs common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: judge needs common sense
VRP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: judge needs common sense
Federal judges are well paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Convenient Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Convenient Constitution
But the feds got the SCOTUS to sign off on not allowing him to do that.
Thus the slow removal of liberty commenced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that the New York Times could publish sensitive military documents during the Vietnam War, even though it might put troops at risk.
If the lives of American soldiers in war time isn't enough to trump the 1st Amendment, I have no idea why this judge thinks banning a picture of a politician in handcuffs is going to pass constitutional muster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's always an issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it actually works the opposite..
Slap a badge on many people and they loose half their sense. Toss judge robes on them and they loose it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abusing the Free Press
VRP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge in Handcuffs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, Mike
We take getting things factually correct extremely important. I'm not sure why you would use sarcasm here. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by what we write around here that you feel the need to attack me and my integrity. It's rather unbecoming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh, Mike
Just like the 1st Amendment, the 6th Amendment is a bedrock principle upon which our nation is founded. The two principles oftentimes clash and must be reconciled to preserve the respective rights each represents (Free Speech versus Right to Trial by an Impartial Jury).
I am disappointed any time I happen to observe what I believe is a lack of understanding of this very important point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, Mike
True, but as you note later, it seems like the 1st Amendment issue should clearly take precedence here. The very idea of even delaying that decision is troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
flag
Military Courtroom Flag and when you are in
a Military Courtroom and your leaving your
Constitutional protected Rights outside
the door of that courtroom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]