Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration Justice is coming

I really really really hate the fact that I appear to be rooting on the side of a guy worth a hundred and forty billion dollars, who "just happens to own a newspaper" but is much more well known for running the world's largest mail order sweatshop.
Since he doesn't really NEED anything from the likes of a guy like me, I'll just say that I hate the David Peckers of the world a lot more, and the Cohens, and the Stones, and the Manaforts, and the Flynns, and the Pruitts, and of course, the Trumps.

Does anyone believe that it really is possible to resurrect a folded up National Enquirer and transform it into a tabloid pulpit to project Trump hatred to every 7-11 in the Western world?

It would be fun to watch!

HAHAHAHA they're claiming that publication of personal dick pics from a cellphone owned by Bezos is "fair use".

People go to jail for publishing revenge porn. What is this but revenge porn? I think AMI is guilty of some pretty significant felonies, and their lawyers are in on it up to their necks. Using a lawyer to commit a crime does NOT make it non-criminal. It just includes the lawyer in the conspiracy.

Seems that some legal minds are attempting to argue that Bartnicki v. Vopper applies to David Pecker.

Except that I run up against Bollea v. Gawker and I don't understand how Bartnicki overturns Gawker and in the process makes REVENGE PORN legal again, more legal than it ever has been.

But I am not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV.

Bartnicki versus Gawker, any takers?

A couple of caveats: I'm not an expert on First Amendment issues; and I hadn't heard of Bartnicki until now - but I am an attorney, and I have identified a couple of chinks in the proverbial Bartnicki armor. And, I love to take on new legal questions.

First, those asserting the precedence of Bartnicki are not wrong, but a) it is narrower in scope than asserted; b) it may not be applicable to the National Inquirer questions; and c) Bollea may inapposite. For fun, let me get all pedantic up here:

1) participation. Bartnicki involved a chain of acquisition for the tape in question, which attenuated the culpability of the publisher/broadcaster, who had no direct knowledge of how the tape came into being. The Inquirer has a reputation for encouraging the acquisition of questionable material, and may, in some instances, have participated in the illegality. That is likely to have been the case here, given the content and target (it forms a pattern). That is a distinction with great significance.

Second, Bartnicki can be interpreted pretty narrowly, despite its broad implications. It was what is called an "as applied" decision, which alone limits its application to how the material is used. What that generally means is that each instance is reviewed independently, rather than in a broad-brush manner - the same rule applies, but the facts change the outcome significantly. The law wasn't changed, the interpretation of the law is different.

Third, the public interest exception. There is a longstanding "public interest" exemption that applies in First Amendment (and certain other) cases. The more significant the "public interest" the more leeway courts give to First Amendment arguments. The Pentagon Papers are a good example of a strong public interest leak. Whistleblower statutes are the embodiment of the concept. As we know from recent cases, however, punishing the leakers is a growing trend. Government Leaks to the Press Are C...e We Suddenly Punishing Them So Harshly? (TIME). The Inquirer would have a hard time arguing much public interest in publishing this material to begin with, especially once the story has been told. Does being a billionaire mean a lack of privacy? But, that leads to the last distinction:

How the material was used. In Bartnicki the illegally obtained tape was simply published. The Inquirer (it is alleged) was actually using it for a non-publication purpose (blackmail). That, in itself, is unprotected (as is all revenge porn).

Finally, the Hulk Hogan case was a State court case, and it doesn't appear Bartnicki was addressed there, as it was resolved before appeals were completed. Arguments about whether Bartnicki is applicable could go either way.

As a final point, I think it is an open question whether the explicit material itself would be within the Bartnicki exemption. Perhaps the fact of an affair is of public interest (which I would generally argue against), and perhaps the creation of material (exposure pics, tapes, etc.) has some "news" value, depending on the nature of the victim, but the exposure of that material itself to public view adds very little value to the public, but perhaps makes it a better tool for blackmail.

Overall, I think the Inquirer has exposed themselves to a lot of pain (maybe it likes that), and perhaps Gawker-level punishment. I think the bigger issue, though, is ancillary criminal exposure (e.g., prosecution and/or loss of immunity). Oh! My popcorn is ready!

The fact that Jeff Bezos has a penis has zero news value. If he didn't have one, that would be newsworthy. Seeing the image of said penis probably has no news value either, unless there is something unusual about it. Images of penises are widely available in every size, color, and shape.

Does embarrassment have a monetary value? Could the perceived value be used to extort someone to do something? Did not Mr Trump pay off at least two women, who had affairs with him, in order to not make the affairs public which would presumably embarrass him or his family?

Clearly having a pic of a dic does have value when placed in proper context.

Trump’s tweet that Senate investigators found “NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION,” explained (Vox). "Trump wants you to believe Richard Burr is the final word on Russia. He isn’t."

So, even though the panel found 100 contacts, at least two people charged for lying to the committee, the collusion contract between the Trump campaign and the Putin administration wasn't signed so it doesn't prove collusion.

Folks, that's not how it works.

I really don't understand. Pecker wrote a letter to somebody and told them that if they didn't do what he wanted he would punish them. All the stuff I have read, so far, seems to think this is OK and nothing can be done. On the other hand I always thought that blackmail was illegal, ie. you can't demand somebody do something or you will punish them (in this case reveal information about them).

Just find the arguments odd............

I am not an attorney but, over the years I have hired them, and also always had a couple on retainer for this and that.

Two things:

Thing 1: Paul Manafort: Trump ex-aide lied to prosecutors, judge rules (BBC). Manafort is fu-u-%$k-ed.

Thing 2: 18 U.S. Code § 875. Interstate communications "the term “extortion” means an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person". The important elements are the "threat" and "thing of value". Not pursuing a lawsuit or other action is, by definition, "of value" to AMI. The standard, as we just saw in the Manafort case, for a violating of an agreement not to prosecute is lower than criminal conviction. AMI screwed the pooch.