Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bryan Caldwell writes: > This is not quite correct. Prior restraints are not per se > unconstitutional - just very strictly scrutinized by the courts (I think > we've been through this before). Although relatively rare, there have been > prior restraints which have survived constitutional scrutiny. Also, there > are some constitutionally guaranteed rights of access to information that > trump the desire of the participants or holders of the information to keep > it withheld (the right of the press to gain access to a criminal trial in > most circumstances, for instance), but this is an area of constitutional > law with many uncertainties. Well, the real question is what constitutes the "press." At the time the Constitution was drawn, the press consisted of publication...in the form of a newspaper, a broadsheet, or pamphlet. So have we somehow drawn a definition of the press that gives certain pressform legitimacy and others not? It would seem that publication would constitute the "press." Wouldn't intent enter into the equation? If you had intent to publish the picture or article, wouldn't you be a legitimate member of he press? (e.g.. an internet publication or whatever) Of course the practical aspect is who can afford to fight a lawsuit brought by the State? The practical answer is no one not employed by the "established" press. Regards, Will Larsen, Terra Bella, CA - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html