5 lawyers in Kilpatrick saga face ethics charges

[Bloomfield Pills]

Bloomfield Pills: the simple fact is this case has been fought and won by reporters and journalists in the 1970s with the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court ruled journalists have right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.

The Supreme Court also said that black people are 2/3rds of a human being. Just because the high court says something doesn't necessarily make it right.

Do you feel that confidential information that leads to a greater truth shouldn't be published?

All I'm doing is posing the question: If it's okay to publish documents that were [[allegedly) illegally obtained because it leads to a "greater good," then at what point is it not okay?

For instance: Let's say there's a mayor who is a dope fiend. Would it be okay for reporters to conspire with a drug dealer to have the mayor set up during a drug buy?

Or let's say there are some important documents inside a public official's home that proved corruption; would it be okay for reporters to consort with a theif to break into the home and steal those documents?

At what point is it not okay reporters to "look the other way" when something illegal is done [[if, indeed something illegal was done).

[SWMAP]

The Free Press didn't set up a sting - the Freep printed what were later declared to be public documents.

I am so sorry that I didn't understand that you don't appear to know that there is no "ethics board" for newspapers and media - either they are breaking a law or they are not. All your lightweight ruminating on Free Press ethics and dissimilar fantasy anecdotes is pointless

[Bloomfield Pills]

The Free Press didn't set up a sting - the Freep printed what were later declared to be public documents.

I am so sorry that I didn't understand that you don't appear to know that there is no "ethics board" for newspapers and media - either they are breaking a law or they are not. All your lightweight ruminating on Free Press ethics and dissimilar fantasy anecdotes is pointless

And you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Are you saying the Free Press doesn't have an ethics policy? That anything a journalist does is okay as long as it isn't against the law?

I'll tell you what's pointless: Continuing a discussion with a person who has no clue. You're obviously a shill for the Free Press, but if your aim is to make the paper look good, you really ought to bow out, because you sure as hell aren't carrying the banner for common sense.

[Novine]

"All I'm doing is posing the question: If it's okay to publish documents that were [[allegedly) illegally obtained because it leads to a "greater good," then at what point is it not okay?"

When a court says it's not OK. Newspapers and reporters don't get a free pass on printing information that's been illegally obtained. The court's balance the public interest against the private harm. In many cases, the courts have decided that the information exposed by the information published outweighs the harm done by information illegally obtained. It also doesn't exempt anyone from prosecution for their illegal activity. Someone who has stolen documents could be charged for that crime. But the First Amendment has a presumption against prior restraint and a presumption in favor of the public's right-to-know.

[mjs]

Bloomfield Pills, its a very intriguing and tough question that has infinite smaller subquestions. Many of these were argued in the full opinion of the Pentagon Papers or other cases and many were hotly debated amongst the Judges. The Constitutional question is when does the right to know interfere with other rights such as the right to privacy, the right to enforce speech neutral laws, and protect national security. Seems the ethical question generally has to strike the same balance so whether its legal often answers whether its ethical. Your 2/3 person comment reminds me that one of the Justices once said some Yogi Berra like comment that, "We're not the final court because we're always right; we're always right because we're the final court."

Is it ethical to conspire with a drug dealer to expose a drug head mayor? Its legal, allows the Mayor to respond, may not even get him out of office, and will likely be no good for a conviction so sure. Is it ethical to do it to a private citizen? Harder to say. They deserve more privacy and have less ability to speak on what happened. Is it ethical to conspire to perform theft and breaking and entry? Conspiracy is a crime, so no, its not ethical to commit a crime. Is it ethical to use them if someone stole them without approval? Sure, the public has a right to know. Is it still ethical if it compromises national security? Probably not since the people have a right to be safe. Is it ethical to lie to the mother of the Speaker of the House? I'd say no; I see nothing ethical in lying and don't trust those that lie to others to be honest with me. But, these are all ethical decisions and ethical decisions are personal.

[exdetroiter]

The Freepress obtained those text messages because its the product of a city owned instrument [[phone). The paper publishing the message and are safe guarded under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Claire]

what has happened to the feds investigation?