Case threatens anonymity for website 'comments'

WorldNetdaily.com ^ | February 28, 2009 | Drew Zahn

[Man50D]

A judge in one of the nation's most brutal carjacking and murder cases has openly questioned in court whether news websites – such as those covering his trial – should be permitted to allow open and anonymous "comments" sections at the bottom of Internet-posted stories.

"I'm saying if there is a profit, there is a responsibility that goes with it," said Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner of Knox County, Tenn., to an attorney for the Knoxville News Sentinel.

"This is not the Internet. This is a site created by you in which you invite comments," the judge stated. "This is something you control."

Richard Hollow, the newspaper's attorney, argued that a court-imposed policy on the "comments" sections would be an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment free speech rights.

"What the court is asking us to do is … set up a board of censorship," Hollow said.

The legal wrangling is part of the trial of five suspects charged in the January 2007 carjacking, rape and murder of Channon Christian, 21, and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, 23, in Knoxville, Tenn.

[Netizen]

That's assuming everyone agrees on the definition of what are considered irresponsible comments and who makes that decision. That makes it very subjective and creates a slippery slope of censorship

Tell you what. Try posting racially inflammatory comments here at FR and see if the mods try to censure you.

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“contaminates the jury and violates defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial.”
Another attempt to confuse the public that the right to a fair trial, when you clients are obviously guilty, means you have a right to be tried by twelve ghetto hoods that believe in an inherent right to rape and murder. Funny how this only becomes an “issue” when the victims are white and the defendants black. I don't remember much outrage about contaminating the jury pool when a group of lacrosse players were being tried and convicted in the media when they were falsely accused by a black prostitute seeking a “white guilt” payday.
The defendants have a right to a fair trial. The jury and the world have the right to hear the evidence of the crime, the reasons why these defendants are the ones that committed the crime to the exclusion of doubt. And the world has the right to say whatever they feel about it. And, if these are the 5 asshats that did indeed torture and then murder, the death penalty should be swiftly applied.

[Netizen]

And, if these are the 5 asshats that did indeed torture and then murder, the death penalty should be swiftly applied.

Which is why a fair trial, makes sense. Why risk the case with a biased jury?

I'll suggest the same to you as I did for Man50.

Try posting racially inflammatory comments here at FR and see if the mods try to censure you.

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“Try posting racially inflammatory comments here at FR and see if the mods try to censure you.”
I'm not into “racially inflammatory”, I'm into real equality.
I could care less about the race of the victims or the “alleged” perpetrators. It's the heinousness of the crime that makes special circumstances apply to the penalty phase. Kidnapping, torture, rape and murder deserve the death penalty.
I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in society of allowing charges of “racism” to mitigate guilt. As for “tainting” the jury pool, If it is a particularly high profile case, or one that has been well publicized in the media to begin with, I'd disqualify any juror that claimed to not have heard, read, or watched anything about the case. They are either liars, or too stupid to be engaged in a trial.

[Netizen]

My point is that censorship happens ALL THE TIME, be it for racial reasons or profanity or inciting hate etc.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

If the cities ignite, will Obama’s 9/08 “get in their face” command mean anything?

Yes, it will mean piles of very rude and throughly dead obamastanians littering the city streets. Many will no't take kindly to having someone or someTHING "get in their face".

[Charlespg]

I have mixed feelings about this
people need to tried by the courts not the press

[Dr.Zoidberg]

There is no Constitutional right for the accused to have STUPID, IGNORANT jurors!

This is true, but from the courts viewpoint, an educated and informed jury limits the power of a court to arbitrarily impose its will without repercussions. This black robed fool's pronouncement against the 1st Amendment standing as a glaring example.

We have fallen under the rule of men, not the rule of law and justice is nowhere to be found.

[Netizen]

Here is another murder case

D.A. seeks names of posters

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2191848/posts

[fork]

Censorship by the owner of a site, for his or her own reasons, is fine.

Censorship by the Government, for practically any reason, is not fine.

[MortMan]

As I read Man50D’s comment, I saw him pointing out that SUBJECTIVE definitions of “irresponsible” and “racist” guarantee that any such government law or ruling as called for by this judge will become de facto political censorship.

The fact that FR maintains for itself (voluntarily) an appropriate high standard in this area is immaterial to his comment.

[Netizen]

Censorship by the owner of a site, for his or her own reasons, is fine. Censorship by the Government, for practically any reason, is not fine.

So, its ok for private citizens to deprive others of their amendment rights?

Whether the government tells you it is wrong or a site owner like here at FR, not because they were told, but because they knew it wasn't right, to post such things, the bottom line is the same. With free speech comes responsibility.

[Oldpuppymax]

So is the judge asking for a cut?

[TigersEye]

So, its ok for private citizens to deprive others of their amendment rights?

A private citizen cannot deprive anyone of their free speech rights. They have no force of law to prevent anyone from speaking their mind. They do have their own rights of private property with which they can limit what is said on their property. Which is entirely different than a governmental edict which can order the silencing of particular speech in an entire medium of communication. If Free Republic or DU choose to restrict what can be said by someone on their own site that person can go to one of millions of other websites or create their own.

As far as the issue of jury contamination goes the judge can sequester the jury or order that they may not view the internet or television or whatever. That is within the judge's purview. Silencing speech that he doesn't want the jury to hear is not. It certainly makes more sense to put restrictions on twelve jurors than on the six billion other people on the planet.

[Netizen]

Silencing speech that he doesn't want the jury to hear is not.

Sigh. That's the whole point, their jury poll has ALREADY been contaminated!

[TigersEye]

Sigh.

Yes, I could already see that your views were emotionally based.

[Balding_Eagle]

My first reaction to this is that the judge (through his years of experience) knows that the public are going to be very angry at the outcome of this trial. He’s just trying to avoid any bad publicity himself for his own conduct.

I myself suspect that the so called ‘perpetrators’ will be found guilty of a few of the charges and will be sentenced to entire weekends in the county jail for the next 3 years.

[Netizen]

Personal attacks mean you have run out of facts. Have a good day! :)

[takenoprisoner]

These demonic creatures committed these horrors over 2 years ago. They should be crispy fried chittlins already.

If the judge were truly concerned that angry internet posters, who rightfully curse these demons,could effect the right of the defendents to a fair and speedy trial, then he could close the proceedings.

But no, he would rather waste more time, delaying the process yet longer, extending the pain and suffering of the victims’ relatives and friends.

Yo Judge, out here we have free speech. You can limit free speech in your courtroom. But don’t even try to extend your power to control matters outside of your courtroom.

[TigersEye]

That was no more a personal attack than restricting speech on a private website is censorship.