Publics Right to Know

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by pegwinn
Cool, what do they have the right to know?
My contention is that we as a nation cannot restrict the press; deep breath ; but, we are not required to cooperate with them either.
So where does the publics right to know stop and your civil liberties begin. If you are the victim of a crime, they will camp out on your door. If you run for office they will claim the right to know every girl you ever tagged (thanks bill). IF you are running a business, they will investigate your practices without much in the way of provocation. Oh well, thanks for the insight.

the press have every right to investigate that you yourself do. The only special priviledge that the press is, or should be, given is access to areas that the mass public would not be able to occupy to get the story for the people.

Now, for the specifics of what you are asking, the press can sit on the sidewalk in front of your home as long as they like, just like I could. Its a public sidewalk and you have no more right to throw me off of it than you would Jacques Chirac, as much as you'd probably like to. As part of the public, I have the right to know everything that my government does since the government is my representation, my employee, and as such, we the people use the press to get this information out. That does not mean that I have the right to know 'every girl that clinton (or any other politician) tagged', yet we (the people) allow this with the excuse of determining the 'character' of a politician. We only have ourselves to blame when things like what happened to jack ryan happen.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
this is the example of how things are completely misconstrued. The PRESS does not have the right to know, the PEOPLE have the right to know. The press is supposed to be the purveyors of truth, yet nowadays there is very little of that without slanted opinion in either direction.

I would agree and point out:

The Constitution would give us cause, responsibility and capacity to impeach on high crimes and misdemeanors.

We have a DUTY to know things our officials do.

I would argue it only goes so far, though.

By the same token, they have no Constitutional authority to SEAL anything.

Therefore, public record is public record.

Sabotaging Constitutional authority by stealing power to seal things
and eliminate our right to impeach, I would think, is an offense its self.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
the press have every right to investigate that you yourself do.

Now you make them sound like Private Investigators. I totally disagree. Your private life is supposedly protected by elements of the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments from Government intrusion. Why would you allow private intrusion?

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
The only special priviledge that the press is, or should be, given is access to areas that the mass public would not be able to occupy to get the story for the people.

Not sure I understand this. But it sounds discriminatory to me. Your saying that I can put a place off limits to an IT WORKER, A CAB DRIVER, AND A STEEL WORKER. But a REPORTER has a legal right to be there?

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Now, for the specifics of what you are asking, the press can sit on the sidewalk in front of your home as long as they like, just like I could. Its a public sidewalk and you have no more right to throw me off of it than you would Jacques Chirac, as much as you'd probably like to.

True, no argument there, unless you can show the cops that you are the target of a nuisance. Then the ol unlawfull assembly ticket book comes out. hee hee hee.

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
As part of the public, I have the right to know everything that my government does since the government is my representation, my employee, and as such, we the people use the press to get this information out.

Damn right. I wasn't discussing the freedom of information or knowlege of government as a whole.

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
That does not mean that I have the right to know 'every girl that clinton (or any other politician) tagged', yet we (the people) allow this with the excuse of determining the 'character' of a politician. We only have ourselves to blame when things like what happened to jack ryan happen.

In your opening line you said that they had the right to investigate, but now they don't. Did I miss something. As to "we only......." I'll buy that, but ya gotta give me a discount

 

[DKSuddeth]

I said they have every right to investigate, just like YOU have every right to investigate. What they have the right to investigate is the daily operations of the government, as well as happenings in and around the world.

I also said that WE are at fault for using the 'character' excuse to allow private information to be obtained by the press. In doing this, we opened the 'pandoras box' so now we have to live with the consequences of that.

Is it right for the press to investigate private matters of individuals? You've answered that yourself when you said you didn't think so but you have the ability to not divulge information when you want.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Originally posted by 777
If I understand this right, people are mad about the press getting hold of Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records because not everything should be available to the press about a politician's personal life. Then would it not follow that they should have been mad about intrusion into Clinton's private sex life? (not what happened afterwards where he lied to the Grand Jury)

If the Americans think it's wrong for the press to dig deeper into a politician's private sex life then shouldn't it apply to politicians of any party?

Jack Ryan was not the President of the United States doing whatever he was doing in the Oval Office. This was also something Ryan was doing with his wife, not an intern. If you don't see the difference, you're not looking very hard.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
This statement shows your ignorance. You ignore the relevance of what happened and why Clinton WAS impeached. He lied to a Grand Jury. His Attorney General convicted and sentenced to prison many Americans that did exactly the same thing under similar circumstances. As Clinton said in his own book, "he did it cuz he could" and the media let him off the hook cuz they are liberal. The totally ignored the relevance just as you totally ignore it.

Again, fuck off. If ya wanna fight let's step outside.

 

[DKSuddeth]

lets keep the childish antics of swearing and street fighting out of the thread, k? thanks.

 

[dilloduck]

Sure--let the press do the legwork and find out whatever they can but they certainly certainly can't force ANYONE to reveal what they don't want too. Now if the press is willing to be held liable to ONLY delivering facts and are willing to dislose ALL of thier sources, I may be open to some kind of deal.

 

[NATO AIR]

we're in the hard copy (even though its long gone) generation

what happened to ryan was heinious... he may have been a dumb husband a few times but that's nothing compared to the dirt on most of the politiicans in washington right now, and i don't want to know any of it, unless somebody got raped, murdered or beaten

men will be men, women will be women.. let them have their affairs, its their lives they're harming, not mine or the public.

a majority of the media used to keep this stuff, now they're in the sensationalist mode and it is the public's fault, all the tabloid crap they are thrilled and riveted by is now into politics as well

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Sure--let the press do the legwork and find out whatever they can but they certainly certainly can't force ANYONE to reveal what they don't want too. Now if the press is willing to be held liable to ONLY delivering facts and are willing to dislose ALL of thier sources, I may be open to some kind of deal.

That's a good point. If so called joarnalists are going to insist on digging up scandels, at all costs, they should be required to reveal sources.

All this pretty much stems from Watergate. Reporters saw what it did for Woodward and Bernstein and saw it as a way to get their own name in the headlines. Eventually, it became expected that they would try to get "the big story". That's all fine and well, but when it gets to the point that the National Enquirer no longer seems so fabricated and sadistic, it's gone a bit far.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Jimmyeatworld
That's a good point. If so called joarnalists are going to insist on digging up scandels, at all costs, they should be required to reveal sources.

All this pretty much stems from Watergate. Reporters saw what it did for Woodward and Bernstein and saw it as a way to get their own name in the headlines. Eventually, it became expected that they would try to get "the big story". That's all fine and well, but when it gets to the point that the National Enquirer no longer seems so fabricated and sadistic, it's gone a bit far.

As a side note which makes this even muddier territory:

If we have the Constitutional right to impeach for misdemeanors, look at marriage law.

In DC it is a misdemeanor to comit an adulterous act.

Clinton was justified to be impeached for that alone.

What about the others?