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

To: summer
Kurtz said he felt there should be a law, similiar to the Son of Sam law in NY (which prevents convicted criminals from selling their stories), whereby a writer is prohibited from colelcting any profit as a result of journalist fraud.

Kurtz apparently isn't very familiar with the First Amendment. The only reason things like Son of Sam laws are constitutionally tolerable - barely (and they have been struck down before) - is because they're based on profiting from felony CRIMES. It is not illegal to lie. The only things Blair could possibly be hit up for are libel and intellectual property theft. One is a civil matter, the other about a half-step above a parking ticket in terms of seriousness, and a crime almost no plagiarizing reporter is ever charged with anyway. They get suspended or fired, and the wronged newspaper drops the matter; that's the way it works.

Besides, it also would get the government into the business of deciding what is and is not "the truth" ... and I don't think there's a single one of us here that doesn't find that concept disgusting.

72 posted on 05/18/2003 11:01:30 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Timesink
It is not illegal to lie.

But actually, it can be illegal to lie. There are many laws prohibiting people from falsifying all kinds of documents, and forgery is a crime based on a lie.
78 posted on 05/18/2003 11:06:02 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: Timesink
Besides, it also would get the government into the business of deciding what is and is not "the truth" ... and I don't think there's a single one of us here that doesn't find that concept disgusting.

Well, that's a good point, but consider this scenario: Say the US Attorney's office alleges and proves Blair is in fact guilty of the crime of grand larceny, because Blair was demanding money from the NYT for travel expenses when Blair was actually home in his apartment.

Now, Blair is tried and convicted. Depending on the amount of money involved, and what exactly the Son of Sam law states, Blair would be prohibitied already from selling his story. If OTHERS want to tell his story and profit, they can. But, not Blair. I think that is fair.
81 posted on 05/18/2003 11:08:57 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: Timesink
Kurtz and his brethern could and should put the pressure on to prevent this. Howard Blah, blah, blah, Kutz. He remains part of the problem.
105 posted on 05/18/2003 11:50:20 AM PDT by Helms (Californication Beyond California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: Timesink
"The only things Blair could possibly be hit up for are libel and intellectual property theft."

He defrauded the NYT out of thousands of dollars in travel expenses. He also accepted payment for services not rendered but nonetheless represented as such, which is more fraud.

141 posted on 05/18/2003 4:18:10 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | 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