Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The_Victor

You should read the article

” the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.

Darbyshire was referring to the portion of California law that prevents judges from signing warrants that target writers for newspapers, magazines, or “other periodical publications.”

Then you could learn something.
The federal newsroom search law known as the Privacy Protection Act is broader. It says that even journalists suspected of committing a crime are immune from searches—if, that is, the crime they’re suspected of committing relates to the “receipt” or “possession” of illegal materials. (Two exceptions to this are national security and child pornography.)


19 posted on 04/27/2010 7:58:08 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Ratman83
You conveniently left off the beginning of that sentence, "According to Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gawker Media LLC,..." That is a statement of opinion, not fact.

You should continue reading that article, "Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but "appropriates such property to his own use" is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year."

20 posted on 04/27/2010 8:09:16 AM PDT by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson