Seven years ago I started my first blog, here, on eblogger which I have included as part of this blog. During these past seven years I have continued to be stalked and harassed over my inherent right as a U.S. citizen in sharing my opinion and my videos pertaining to the parental abduction and parental alienation of Ron Cornett's two children, Shelby and Ronald, to include in recent years his grandchildren Korah and Lucas from him and myself. I, as a journalist will continue to present my opinion and my truth. Journalists are protected by "freedom ... of the press" that is explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while privacy rights of individuals are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Until such time as Shelby and Ronald, themselves take issue with what I've said or done and we as individuals have a discussion about it, I will continue. All either of them have to do is contact me themselves directly as themselves to talk about it. I will not accept an alias to be them. It lacks integrity and character. From my perspective, until such time as that happens, their omission implies their consent. Because of Jodi and Donald's lack of positive effective communication and refusal to discuss the matter with Ron, their father or myself their stepmother rationally, and resolve this issue as mature adults I am hesitant to entertain any input from either of them at this point in time as serious, meaning Jodi and Donald. More explicitly the website where the blogger only identifies themselves with a pseudo name. This may be an impostor lacking integrity, character and credibility. If whomever you are is serious enough about your assertions, then one would think you would be serious enough to own up to what you say; take personal responsibility for your own words and attach your full name. Talk about playing games. How immature, irresponsible and adolescent you are. Still "stuck" in your juvenile behavior!!
To Everything There is a Season 2012
Freedom of Speech (written in 2010)
This being my first blog on eBlogger I find it rather synchronistic that it just so happens to be the 4th of July weekend that I post my initial entry. The reason I titled by blog "Freedom of Speech" is because as of late I've come to appreciate living in the United States of America as well as my inherent freedoms that go with being a U.S. Citizen. I am truly blessed. Every now and again something happens in my life to remind me how precious a particular aspect of my life is. Lately, "Freedom of Speech", my first amendment right, is an aspect which I have taken for granted until it was tested recently. I've had my Facebook, My Space pages and 2 websites I've established pertaining to Parental Alienation sabotaged by an individual/individuals that don't respect this as my inherent right. Every one has an opinion and as a U.S. Citizen has the right to express it. However, it is obvious this person doesn't know how to respect boundaries or how to "Agree to Disagree". This person is willing to violate a tenant so basic because it is in conflict with their own point of view and agenda. Such arrogance. This is why we have a justice system in our country. To address such issues. No one person is judge, jury and executioner of anything pertaining another person, as in my case, my opinion. I will say what it is I have to say irregardless of this kind of self serving childish behavior. All this does is fuel my consternation to continue on all the more. So I continue to fly my father's American flag high and carry on. Dad was a veteran of the Korean War. I'm so proud of him. It is because of men and women like him that we live in the country we do today and have all of
our Freedoms. "Freedom of Speech" just being one of them. I say-Thank You to all of our founding father's, veteran's, active duty service men and women. God Bless America.
Journalists are protected by "freedom ... of the press" that is explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while privacy rights of individuals are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. A public figure has great difficulty recovering for defamation (i.e., publication of false statements). N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580A. See also Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)(Require finding of "knowing or reckless falsity" before plaintiff can recover under state privacy statute for false portrayal). There would presumedly be even less protection for publication of true statements (i.e., inventory of a garbage can) of a public figure. For the same reasons, a public figure can not recover for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" caused by a parody or satire. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
In 1910, William Sidis, a child prodigy, was a public figure. Many years after he became a recluse, a reporter for The New Yorker located Sidis in 1937 and wrote an article that described in detail Sidis' current activities. Sidis sued the publisher for invasion of privacy, what would now be called "unreasonable intrusion on seclusion". The Court of Appeals held that Sidis' life was still of public interest, therefore The New Yorker could publish an article about him. Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corp., 113 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1940). This famous case is typical of many subsequent decisions: journalists have the right to report anything that is arguably of interest to their readers. Courts do not want to get involved in evaluating whether the reader's interest is in good taste, socially decent, etc. Still, I am concerned that Sidis' right to solitude — his right to be let alone — was violated because of a nosy public's curiosity about Sidis as a freak. Sidis
There are several television programs in the USA that show paramedics or firemen rescuing people. When someone calls for emergency assistance and a television camera crew also appears and enters their house, the victim is in no condition for either consent or protest to this invasion of his/her privacy. There have been several reported cases in which the victim later sued the television program for invasion of privacy.
Shulman v. Group W Productions, 59 Cal. Rptr.2d 434 (1997);
Miller v. NBC, 232 Cal.Rptr. 668 (1986);
Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting, 712 P.2d 803 (Or. 1986).
In commenting on the dearth of precedents for similar intentional trespasses and invasions of privacy, the court in Miller noted
There is little California case law based upon facts showing actual physical intrusion to assist us in making this determination, probably because even today most individuals not acting in some clearly identified official capacity do not go into private homes without the consent of those living there; [FN6] not only do widely held notions of decency preclude it, but most individuals understand that to do so is either a tort, a crime, or both.
FN6. There are surprisingly few cases in other jurisdictions as well, probably for the same reason. There have been some hospital intrusion cases where the person whose privacy was invaded was ill or dying; see, e.g., Barber v. Time, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. 1942); Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, M.D., 365 A.2d 792 (Me.1976); Froelich v. Werbin, 548 P.2d 482 (Kan. 1976); and see, in a different privacy context, Bazemore v. Savannah Hospital, 155 S.E. 194 (Ga. 1930), where hospital authorities summoned the press to take pictures of a deformed infant who had died in the operating room. In California there is Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 109 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1973) where the investigative efforts on behalf of defendant Sears led to intrusion into a hospital room (not a privacy case at all). Many of the fact patterns involved in the above-cited cases are bizarre, and not accidentally so; all involve intrusions generated by a curiosity or misplaced zeal that most persons eschew.
Miller v. NBC, 232 Cal.Rptr. 668, 678-679 (1986). [citations edited to conform to modern Blue Book format]
It is not yet clear exactly where the boundary between "freedom of the press" and privacy of individuals should be drawn. Miller made clear that a film crew entering a home with paramedics (not only was the film crew uninvited, but they never asked permission from the homeowners) was an intentional trespass that is actionable in tort. The court in Shulman held that victims did have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside an ambulance, however this case is currently under review by the California Supreme Court. review granted 934 P.2d 1278 (Calif. 1997). These two cases describe the law only in California.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared
The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office.
Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 249 (9th Cir. 1971).
No comments:
Post a Comment