Richard Nangle reports in today’s Worcester T&G:
A federal judgeâs ruling allowing a Leominster woman to post a video of a state police arrest on her Web site has reverberated to the nationâs capital, where a major First Amendment case is playing out in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Read the entire article here (reg. req.) or here.
It seems like the ruling won by Mary Jean against the Massachusetts State Police might save the national Dems $700,000. She might be one of their favorite local activists right around now.
Please share widely!
I’m an R, and I applaud the Circuit Court’s ruling allowing the video to stay posted.
<
p>
I’m unsure how that is in any way connceted or similar to McDermont’s intercepting and tape recording cell phone conversations, a federal crime. Am I missing something?
<
p>
And please explain (a) how this reverberates and (b) saves $700,000.
I think she’s referring to the $700,000 in damages that a Federal court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner – though I’d never heard that the Democratic party was going to pay that. Maybe it’ll save McDermott the fine.
<
p>
As to how it relates, the article explains it very explicitly. The judge in the Conte case explicitly referred to the McDermott case, and explained why he thought it was wrongly decided in light of Supreme Court precedent. McDermott is using that ruling in his appeal. Both of these cases were decided at the same level (Federal Circuit Courts).
Representative McDermott did not intercept or tape anyone’s calls. He was given the tapes by those who did the recording, and he gave what he had to the press.
..but to add, thank goodness there are Republicans like you who value the First Amendment. This isn’t a Dem v. Rep issue. As a matter of fact, the Democratic establishment in Worcester County run by (thankfully lame duck) DA John Conte on the basis of fear and intimidation is a scary reminder of what too much concentrated power can do. He should be the poster boy for DA term limits.