Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFormer Harvard profs Tribe and Dershowitz on opposite sides on Epstein press coverage.
Link to tweet
Laurence Tribe
✔
@tribelaw
Press access to criminal proceedings is a core First Amendment right. My first Supreme Court argument established that: Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia 448 U.S.555 (1980). Any civil libertarian should know that.
✔
@tribelaw
Press access to criminal proceedings is a core First Amendment right. My first Supreme Court argument established that: Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia 448 U.S.555 (1980). Any civil libertarian should know that.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 850 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (11)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Former Harvard profs Tribe and Dershowitz on opposite sides on Epstein press coverage. (Original Post)
pnwmom
Jul 2019
OP
It is being sloppily reported in some places that AD wanted the judge to unseal all the records
pnwmom
Jul 2019
#2
The underlying Miami Herald article is written by the indispensable Julie K. Brown
gratuitous
Jul 2019
#3
Good points made, but I think it runs up against secret addendums on every law in that...
SWBTATTReg
Jul 2019
#5
ANd if you are a billionaire repub, the law doesnt' apply to you on two counts.
Amaryllis
Jul 2019
#6
lapfog_1
(29,244 posts)1. Dershowitz has a lot of reasons to suppress public access to court testimony
very little of it having to do with his client.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)2. It is being sloppily reported in some places that AD wanted the judge to unseal all the records
in the old case. In reality, all AD wanted unsealed were some documents he thought would disprove one of the victims' claims against him.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)3. The underlying Miami Herald article is written by the indispensable Julie K. Brown
As the kids say, read the whole thing.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)4. OMFG what a shitshow of corruption and malfeasance.
Dershowitz is screwed. I wonder how many others are now also screwed with NY case.
SWBTATTReg
(22,235 posts)5. Good points made, but I think it runs up against secret addendums on every law in that...
if you're a billionaire, the law doesn't apply to you. This seems this way (I know that this isn't how the law is written, but I've seen too many 'rich' people get away with stuff w/ a slap on the wrist, e.g., look at the sentence E rec'd for his FL offenses...
Hopefully, I am thinking that being in the public eye via associations w/ rump, this won't simply fade / go away...Justice needs to be served up.
Amaryllis
(9,527 posts)6. ANd if you are a billionaire repub, the law doesnt' apply to you on two counts.