11

There's no law against him saying the paper should name the source, nor is there any law against directly asking the paper to name its source. The president was at a campaign rally, and his speech is protected by the same First Amendment that protects the New York Times. At the federal level, the paper could be forced to reveal the source, but it would have ...


11

Where the President explicitly tells a newspaper that they should reveal their sources. Is this not illegal in the US? It is not illegal. Well, it would be a U.S. Attorney, rather than the President himself. You're thinking of shield laws, but no such law exists at the federal level. Moreover, although some people might think that the First Amendment ("...


3

In a legal sense, if you are posing as a journalist, you can ask anything of anyone, and it's up to them to answer your questions or provide you with photos or documents. If they provide you with photos or documents against the regulations of their employer (or state or federal law), that's their prerogative and their legal risk. They can be protected by ...


2

Since you're posting on Law, I will assume that you are interested in the legal definition of prostitution. This depends entirely on the jurisdiction, which you have not specified very precisely (criminal law in the US is largely the realm of the states). With that in mind: New York and Texas both define prostitution in terms of engaging in sexual conduct ...


2

A copyright or DMCA violation could be civil or criminal, and each has different rules. In a criminal case, the 5th Amendment applies. A person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself. The government could get warrants to search whatever they needed to search, but they'd first need probable cause. In a civil case, the plaintiff cannot get search ...


2

There is no law against receiving such information, or publishing it. Bartnicki v. Vopper establishes that even if information was obtained illegally (e.g. hacking email), if the publisher does not know it was illegally obtained, they are not liable. Boehner v. McDermott determined that a party who knows that material is illegally obtained and did not ...


2

Newspapers typically have some public statement to the effect that they reserve the right to edit letters to the editor, though you may have to dig for it. Some papers inform authors of rewordings in advance, and most (good) papers will publish something resembling a retraction if they mistakenly pervert your argument through editing. You permission is ...


2

The pattern that you are probably referring to is well over the line of "fair use", especially when articles appear in multiple outlets with vast amounts of verbatim copying. There is no way for a reader to know if the article is a licensed copy, versus a pirated copy, except in the rare case that the article includes a by-line indicating that it comes from ...


2

It is not unusual that newspapers publish private correspondence without clearing copyright with the author. One example The Guardian: WikiLeaks embassy cables. AFAIK, no journalist or editor has ever been convicted for copyright infringement for publishing private emails without clearing copyright first (under the rule of law – I don't know about ...


2

The PressGazette has a brief but illuminating article which gives information on : ...over 64 journalists arrested in the UK between April 2011 and October 2014) including 25 former News of the World journalists and 25 from the Sun. The majority of these were for unlawfully intercepting communications, intercepting mobile phone voicemail messages without ...


1

What, if anything, legally constitutes "giving in confidentiality" a letter of correspondence penned by a foreign official, to someone else, by the President of the United States? Can such a thing simply be claimed by the President on a whim, or does it have to be in writing (say a "CONFIDENTIAL" stamp) on the letter in order to have legal force if ...


1

United States v Ivanov appears to be directly relevant The fact that a person is, or claims to be as in Assange’s situation, a journalist does not give them the right to ignore the law. It is against US law to gain (or conspire to gain) unauthorised access to a protected computer system.


1

While neither international jurisdictional issues nor the First Amendment would invalidate a U.S. law criminalizing this conduct, it isn't entirely clear if there is a criminal statute in existence which would make this conduct illegal. Hypothetically, suppose it were possible to prove that the Daily Caller paid women in the Dominican Republic to make ...


1

Libel and slander provides for civil remedies, not criminal remedies, and are not a natural right. The paying of others to slander and lie may run afoul of US laws. The RICO Act comes to mind. US jurisdiction extends overseas, for US citizens.


1

The fact that the emails were obtained through deception would count against the journalist on the first prong of a fair use analysis, i.e. the nature of the copying. Bad faith copying was part of the problem in Gerald Ford memoir case, whose name escapes me at the moment. But I'd still expect that fact to be outweighed by the other factors. News reporting ...


1

I'd consult a lawyer on that one. There's a possibility it could be tortious interference, although I don't think it is. The caselaw is going to vary somewhat by state, although there may be First Amendment issues that apply throughout the US. This paper is interesting. The introduction states that CBS once declined to broadcast an interview with a ...


1

They are all detailed in the report linked to the news article. relevantly (p.8): Undercover Operation involving FBI employees posing as members of the news media Undercover Review Committee review and Deputy Director approval, after consultation with Deputy Attorney General Since the process is internal there is no way of knowing if or how often the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible