Posted on 12/23/2017 1:07:44 PM PST by iowamark
Had ENOUGH Yet ? ........................ Enforce the Bill of Rights .........It is the LAW...
To be fair, the First Amendment only constrains the Congress -- not the States.
That said, the TX Constitution says the following:
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTSThe underlined makes that cited law null and void.
Sec. 8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; LIBEL.Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the conduct of officers, or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
Sounds like she has a ticket to the lawsuit lottery.
If she got her data legally from the internet and didn’t use someones log in name and 1,2,3,4 as the security#/pass word.
She will never have to work again after her quick lawsuit victory.
The FBI said they won't be releasing the motive until next October (right before the midterms). Deep State still hasn't been flushed. The FBI needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
The First Amendment does not, and cannot, apply to this case — it is only operative on the Congress. Period.
Reminds me of the reporter that got the ‘details’ of murder stories and often first on the scene....ended up he was the one doing the murdering!
Article states....”Texas law says people can be charged with misuse of official information if they receive it “with intent to obtain a benefit” from it.”.....
Now that’s interesting.
It's not floating around today
— it's literally what the English Common Law is predicated on: Everything which is not forbidden is allowed
.
1. There’s an attempt by cops, government and the MSM to distinguish between the “traditional” or “real” press and what they consider pretenders like book writers, bloggers and basic internet pains in the ass. The First Amendment is broad enough to include all these strains, including individuals exercising their “free speech”.
2. The government does not go after the NY Times or Washington Post when they leak highly classified material and war plans, which even cause real damage, because they are gutless and like to pick off these outliers crazy ole fat lady” person
What do you think manners and morals are? They are part of the idea that not everything needs to have a law against it.
I know, the concept that just because there is not a law against it that you perhaps should not do it is hard for the childish mindset to comprehend.
Alabama kept blogger Roger Shuler in jail for 5 months.
He later extracted his revenge by being the first one to report on Alabama governor Robert Bentley’s crimes. Which led to the appointment of Luther Strange. Which led to Judge Roy Moore winning the GOP primary which led to DEM Doug Jones in the senate.
Whew.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment_of_Roger_Shuler
The more laws you need means the more the state of peoples ability to self control (ie govern) themselves has fallen.
At the same time it gives cover to those who want more laws to grow government and control you.
I'm not saying that just because you can do something means you should. The issue here isn't morals
or manners
, the issue here is that the government is blatantly violating the law. Period.
(Post #22 explains how.)
Dead wrong. Under the concept of Federalism the states have the power to regulate a great many things that Congress cannot. No state has the power to violate God given individual rights protected under the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And the congress can’t abridge those freedoms. As the states have purview over anything not spelled out in the constitution, they can’t take away those freedoms spelled out in the constitution.... as in the amendments.
The Norks have a version of this: everything not forbidden is mandatory. It’s called totalitarianism.
That’s not a concept going by around them day, it’s the central tenet of our legal system.
What is not forbidden is permitted. This was codified by Blackstone in the mid 1700’s. most of the rest of the world follows the opposite. What is not permitted is forbidden.
I prefer freedom.
They can go after the employee that leaked it, but not the reporter in my opinion.
In during an emergency, the pretty girl remembers to smile...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.