April Ryan Got Death Threats

Journalist April Ryan asked press secretary Sarah Sanders, the other day, if Donald Trump had any thoughts about resigning the presidency because of all of his recent legal woes. Sarah Sanders rudely told Ms. Ryan that the question was "ridicules" and moved on, without answering it. All she wanted to know is whether or not the current president is considering resignation in the face of all of the evidence amassed against his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and against himself. After all, Nixon resigned, in the face of much, much less evidence. Why wouldn't Trump consider such a sensible option? The question is not ridicules, at all. What is ridicules, and against the law, are the criminal threats that have been issued to Ms. Ryan by Trump's base. Why are people who enjoy the leadership of criminals and who vote for filth, such as Donald Trump, threatening a person's life? Is this the reaction of today's Republicans when someone asks a question?

County Attorney In Kansas Hates The First Amendment

Laura, you never cease to amaze me. Seriously. And I don't mean that as a compliment, either.

When someone has a relative who brings weed into his home, and the homeowner goes up on charges for it, what does his job as a journalist, his appearances in TV documentaries, and his previous ownership of a local newspaper have to do with his case? And why do those things mean he should serve a longer sentence?

How's the farm, Laura?

South Carolina Responsible Journalism Resgistry Law

Republican South Carolina representative Mike Pitts, pictured above, has sponsored a bill in his state's congress, which will be called the South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law if it gets passed. Before covering matters related to government, a journalist would be required to undergo a background check, similar to the background check required before buying a handgun, to report the news. No one who has written anything controversial, or who has written anything that has garnered complaints about government, petitions, or boycotts would be allowed to cover state events. There would also be a non-refundable fee for the background check to report the news, effecting a charge to tell the truth! Also, every journalist in South Carolina would have to be listed in a registry. Hmm....where has your blogger heard something like this before? This sounds an awful lot like the German Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service in 1933, which was aimed at forcing Jews out of any professional field in Nazi Germany.

This bill is such a gross violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution that it will never pass. Still, the question that needs to be answered is this: why is South Carolina so afraid of writers and journalists?

ACLU Addresses The Rights Of Photography

It's become abundantly clear, lately, that police officers in America do not like added scrutiny provided by amateur and professional photographers and cell phone users. Unfortunately, this finding also coincides with a massive revelation that police officers often think that they are above the law, and can inflict violence whenever their little hearts desire, even to the point of murder. Many of them do not even understand the United States Constitution, much less respect it.

The good news is that those of us who take pictures of police officers and grab cell phone video of our tax dollars being spent are, according to the law, within our constitutional rights. No police officer has a right to shut down a news team or a private citizen taking pictures. The only loophole, in certain states, has to do with wiretapping laws: recorded audio cannot be deliberately captured and shared in all locales. But then, an officer carrying out his duties in public is not a private conversation, so the wiretapping laws do not apply in those instances.

The American Civil Liberties Union has found itself defending cases involving private citizens with cell phone and corporations such as television stations because of this issue with police officers and photography. As recently as the second week of August, police in Ferguson, Missouri did not want their tear gas activities photographed and recorded by journalists, so they handcuffed and arrested a couple from the Huffington Post and the Washington Post. As it happens, the only laws broken were broken by police.

Why is accountability so difficult for law enforcement to accept?

Court Proceedings In Kansas

This past Wednesday, in Topeka, Kansas, a young man named Austin Tabor was, I repeat, WAS, on trial for the murder of another young man, Matthew Mitchell, in October of 2010. While the courthouse allows people to take cell phones, and other odds and ends, such as camaras inside, it is still a distinct no-no to take pictures of certain individuals, such as jury members, during a trial. The judge in this case reiterated the warning to everyone, but a reporter from the Topeka Capitol Journal went ahead and snapped a shot of the backs of a couple of people's heads, the silluette of a jury member beside the window, and the tops of a couple of jury members' heads. She tweeted this image to her employers, who went ahead and published it online. Later in the day, the judge was sent a message concerning the contempt of her orders, and she declared a mistrial.

Judging from the comments that have been printed from readers of the Topeka Capitol Journal, it would seem that a lot of Kansans do not understand why this mistake was so costly and unprofessional. Not only does a new court date have to be set amid courthouse furloughs designed to save money, but a new jury has to be seated. Also, the defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial, and the victim's family has a right to see justice. The journalist interferred with those things when she defied the judge's order to leave the jury unphotographed and unidentified.

The above situation is sad enough, but here is something even more troubling; it's a comment from a reader of one of the stories about this journalist and her published twitter photo. Here it is:

"I can say that the reporter's mistake wasn't the first mistake made in the trial that could have possibly caused a mistrial. The victim's mother disregarded instructions given to the jury pool before we watched the official jury video. We were instructed to not take notes unless instructed. She also ignored the judge's instructions to all persons not in the jury pool to leave the room. As each potential juror was called, she recorded that person's name in her small 4x6 notebook. When a person was dismissed for cause, she crossed out that persons name and recorded the name of the replacement. And even though the prosecutor's witness list was part of the filing prior to jury selection, she also recorded the names on that list. She left before lunch when a male came in to the courtroom and signalled her. As she was leaving, even the judge asked her if she was part of the pool and she said no. It may not seem to some as a big deal, but if you knew that a member of the victim's family recorded your name in a notebook, you would probably feel intimidated on some levels."

The judge told everyone not in the jury pool to leave! Instead, one person thought it would be okay to disregard the judge and stay! What was she going to do with all of the names of chosen jury members? Kill them, if they did not return the verdict she desired? Perhaps the errant journalist saved a life by necessitating a mistrial.