1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Judge orders LA Times to rewrite story

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by HanSenSE, Jul 15, 2018.

  1. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    HanSenSE, Jul 15, 2018
    #1
  2. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    Spartan Squad, Jul 15, 2018
    #2
    matt_garth and HanSenSE like this.
  3. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    A couple questions I have about this:

    In response to the order from U.S. District Judge John F. Walter, The Times revised the article to eliminate information about the sealed document. The newspaper intends to contest the order.

    To whom would the order be contested? And, what if it wins the contest? This story says that the newspaper did revise its article, doing what the judge ordered by eliminating the disputed information. If it wins the case, would The Times then re-print the article in its papers, or just re-post it its original form on the Web?
     
    WriteThinking, Jul 15, 2018
    #3
  4. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    lcjjdnh, Jul 15, 2018
    #4
  5. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    This judge shouldn’t have a job if he knowingly violates the First Amendment.
     
    SnarkShark, Jul 16, 2018
    #5
    tapintoamerica, Tweener and YankeeFan like this.
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Aside from all of the, "The first amendment guarantees. ... " stuff. A judge ordering an entity to do things, when it was never a party to an action in his courtroom and never had a chance to represent their interests? To me, that is at least as frightening, if not more frightening, than the free press issues. I mean, do we really want some broad judicial power where any judge can just order anyone to do things that aren't a matter of law, when the people he's targeting aren't even involved in a case before the judge? That seems as scary to freedom, individual rights and our broad civil liberties as anything I have heard in a while, because it's not even narrow like a free press issue. It's giving a broad, dictatorial power, to any judge who just wants to wave a scepter.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 16, 2018
    #6
    Bronco77, swingline, wicked and 5 others like this.
  7. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    lcjjdnh, Jul 19, 2018
    #7
    YankeeFan likes this.
  8. dirtybird

    dirtybird Well-Known Member

    To boot, it was also deeply and terribly pointless and only happened because of a court error.
     
    dirtybird, Jul 19, 2018
    #8
  9. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Tough shit. Not the paper's fault.
     
    hondo, Jul 27, 2018
    #9
  10. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    And they say nobody monitors SJ.com.
     
    jr/shotglass, Jul 27, 2018
    #10
  11. dirtybird

    dirtybird Well-Known Member

    Yes. That is a point I was making.
     
    dirtybird, Jul 29, 2018
    #11
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page