CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Anon — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:41:08 -0000

Knowing Judge Purham, there is likely no precise ruling. He's an old Peoria County prosecutor who worked in the same office with Lucas before becoming a judge, no surprise he takes thier side. Juvenile Court is a kangaroo court if there ever was one in the USA; hell, people who steal TVs get more legal rights than people who get caught up in the juvenile court meat grinder.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Anonymous ZZZ — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:17:58 -0000

I agree that the judge's reference to "so-called blogs" was demeaning. I'm also not questioning Ms. Hopkins' credibility. I don't fear bloggers; I just think this case brings up some food for thought - that's all.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:01:23 -0000

This particular blogger has to be defended because she is doing journalism. The family was OK with her presence.

In these hearings, the judge obviously has some discretion, but he was a jerk about it... "so-called blog." Indeed.

I don't think we need to fear bloggers. Everybody always wants to present the worst case and suggest government intervention. When has there ever been a real problem with allowing bloggers into things? The controversy about their "being" is way overblown.

When I first started in this business, there were people who wanted me to go away and did some things to make that happen. It didn't work. So, I'm obviously sensitive to these matters. But any attempt to try and define me in state statute as a journalist or as not a journalist would be met with a very severe reaction. Trust me on that.

The government needs to stay out of the news business. Once we let the government define us, they can control us.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Anonymous ZZZ — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:52:51 -0000

I understand where you're coming from, Rich, and you have a good point, but again - what's stopping any goofball with a blog from being able to attend these sorts of things? Don't you think there should be SOME standards in place?

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:44:14 -0000

Because if the government can decide who a reporter is, then they can prevent reporters from doing their jobs.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Anonymous ZZZ — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:37:41 -0000

Rich, why shouldn't the government define what "news media" should include? They lay out definitions all the time in the statute. The Act that YDD cited defines "adult", "parent", "legal custody" and a whole host of other things that would seem more clear-cut than "news media." I know this question has been brought up before, Rich, but I haven't really seen an answer: Without a clear-cut definition of "news media" in the statutes, what is there to stop someone who just barfs up their opinions on the news of the day via a blog and doesn't do any real fact-checking from being allowed to enter these hearings?

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Yellow Dog Democrat — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:33:47 -0000

And not to beat a dead horse and our Jerk-of-theMonth any further, but according to the Pew Center :

- Some 15% of all American adults say the internet was the place where they got most of their campaign news during the [2006] election, up from 7% in the mid-term election of 2002.

- 20% of campaign internet users say they got political news and information from blogs

- convenience is the top reason people use the internet to get political news information and that the majority of campaign internet users go to the websites of mainstream news organizations. At the same time, though, a majority of internet users go to non-traditional sites such as blogs, humor and satire sites like The Daily Show, international sites, alternative sites, candidate and government sites.

[Emphasis added]

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Yellow Dog Democrat — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:26:02 -0000

Again, I'd like to read the entire appellate decision in its entirety. Perhaps you could forward it to capitolfax and they could put it online.

In the meantime, perhaps we should start a legal fund for Hopkins and ask the ACLU to take up her case.

I get the feeling the Illinois Press Association isn't interested, but I could be wrong. :-)

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Rob_N — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:44:12 -0000

The definition of "news" is "a report of a recent event; intelligence; information."

It was Ms. Hopkins intent to self-publish "a report of a recent event; intelligence; information" and that was her reason for being in the courtroom.

Ergo, Ms. Hopkins is a self-publishing "news media" entity.

It doesn't matter what medium she uses to self-publish the news she reports.

It doesn't matter if she has a liberal or conservative bent to her reportage.

It doesn't matter if she is an independent writer or affiliated with a known news organization.

Not only does the relevant ILCS act say so, the first amendment to our national Constitution says so.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:15:57 -0000

It should not be defined in statutes. The government has no business deciding that issue. Period.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Vinron — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:12:32 -0000

Good point, Rich. I was talking about broadening the current definitions or at least bringing them into the 21st century. The definitions are already there. As a previous commenter said, having a blogger.com account doesn't make you a journalist.

Are you saying the term shouldn't be defined at all? Or just on a case by case basis?

Lawyers get nervous when you take definitions out of statutes or contracts. How can they find loopholes and technicalities then?

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:00:22 -0000

Vinron, thanks. But if you're talking about "changing the definition of news media" in the statutes, I would be unalterably opposed. No way should the government dictate in statute what is and isn't the news media or who is and isn't a journalist.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Vinron — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:58:13 -0000

Rich,
We're about 10-20 years from 'which blog' mattering. Many judges stay away from computers altogether. (I have no knowledge about Judge Purham). Search google, recently a judge presiding over a terrorism trial in Great Britain admitted that he did not know what a website was.

I was talking about changing the definition of news media to keep up w/technology. That's relevant to this conversation and whether the judge made the right decision, IMO. There is no question in my mind that Ms. Hopkins' blog should be considered news media, esp. with her years of experience in print media.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Vinron — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:50:59 -0000

BTW, I think Elaine did a series on DCFS about 5 years ago when she wrote for PJS -- mothers losing kids for staying with paramours/boyfriends who abused the mothers (I think).

Probably have to pay to access that series from PJS.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:48:56 -0000

Vinron, we're not talking about "any blog." Don't obfuscate. We're talking about the particular blog in question.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Vinron — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:46:53 -0000

YDD -
I can't post a link to that opinion, it is 6 yrs too old to be found on the court's website. I'm not going to post it on the 'net anywhere either, lest the two Gods of legal publishing for profit bring the hammer down on me. JUST found that the decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Illinois in 149 Ill.2d 247 (1992), with dissent from Justices Miller and Heiple. I'll have to look at that decision later.

I agree that the judge can't kick the media out of juvie court for any reason, but the judge "has discretion to determine the best way to conduct juvenile proceedings" according to the 4th -- so it would be difficult to get such a decision reversed on appeal.

Perhaps the issue is whether juvenile court proceedings should be closed to the public. Several states are moving away from that. Illinois, not surprisingly, is not on the lead on this issue.

Also, how much of a blog would be necessary to be in the media? I could start ten blogs today, but not regularly post any entries. Do we have a minimum content requirement? Do we really want a judge to decide based on the content of the publication?

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:22:53 -0000

billy, I searched the PJ-Star's website and found nothing.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Billy Dennis — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:17:32 -0000

peoriamedia: The problem might be due to the fact that the JS puts most of it's storied behind a paid firewall. When stories aren't browsed, they don't rank high in google rankings.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Ghost — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:17:01 -0000

Rich, you may want to use the word traditional then in place of local (not to split hairs).

But, to those who claim the story is being covered (without a reporter present this seems a dubious coverage) it is irrelevant. Even if there had other journalists present, it was still a jerk thing to exclude anyone present who was seeking to report what was happening. More so where there was no one eles, but this is not the critical point. That the story appears on the AP wire, a newspaper, or an internet blog matters not.

The statutes permissive presence for the media establishes that the proceedings are intended to be public knowledge. So there can not be a great privacy expectation to begin with. I think this provision has little to do with privacy, but more to do with de-ecalating the hearings. These are highl charged hearings, and letting in the family members, friends and sympathisers has great potential for violence. The media allows for the contents of the hearing to be viewed and viewable by the public, but excluding the public at large helps to keep emotional outbursts and responses from the gallery. In short, its not about privacy, the intent is for it to all be publicly available, its about keeping charged subject matter under control during hearings.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Yellow Dog Democrat — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:08:01 -0000

Vinron - It would be great if you'd post a link to the Appellate Court decision in the 4th District.

I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment that judges can do whatever they want based on that decision, but lets keep a few things in mind about the Appellate Court in the 4th District in 1990:

- Not a single Democrat on the Appellate Bench
- Not a single Democratic judge in Champaign County

It would not surprise me to see Republican judges upholding the right of other Republican judges to operate beyond public scrutiny, but that's no reason to toss aside a plain reading of the statute. Especially where the life-safety of a child is involved.

Judges can ban the "general public", but not the "news media" from juvenile court proceedings. The judge can and routinely does bar the "news media" from identifying the minor. Everyone one is protected -- except bad judges and state's attorneys who cover up for them.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Alison — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:04:49 -0000

A blog is published writing, a journal of a person's day. It's a medium available whether others are or not. Therefore, a blogger is certainly a journalist -- news media. The judge needs to do his research. One of these days the IL Statutes will catch up with the times. Also, Elaine Hopkins was in the court as a stringer & choses to publish her articles on the internet. Considering her as news media is wholly appropriate regardles of the publishing medium she uses.

The decision to allow other journalists & not Elaine was inappropriate. Usually, judges like this one has a few skeletons in the family closet. They create bias in decisions. This one defintely doesn't have the children's interests in mind. What a piece of work. Jerk of the Month is being kind.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

BlueByrd — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:08:56 -0000

Of course, now Elaine is the crusading "journalist" in this story. Classic.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

peoria media — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:04:17 -0000

Rich, your last comment about the Peoria media not covering is not true at all. This story has been covered inthe past and it has also been reported that the mom making this allegations has a history of abuse. Elaine Hopkins blog is very liberal and very much anti-everything. I do not agree with the judges ruling, but I do take exception to your final comment.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Vinron — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:03:13 -0000

I agree with the reading of the statute YDD found -- a blogger should be considered news media. The definition of news media and reporter is pretty broad throughout the statutes.

Reporter's privilege: Reporter means any person regularly engaged in the business of collecting, writing or editing news for publication through a news medium on a full-time or part-time basis.. . . News medium is any newspaper or orther periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format and having a general circulation, etc. 735 ILCS 5/8-902.

As far as local gov'ts releasing arrest reports: news media means personnel of a newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format, etc. (See 20 ILCS 2605/2605-302).

That all being said, it appears that a judge has the power to allow media in to juvenile court as the judge sees fit. In re Minor v. Champaign News-Gazette, 205 Ill. App. 3d 480 (4th Dist. 1990).

[Illinois' General Assembly has a great website. It was easy to search for these statutes.]

Blog, weblog, blogger. None of those words appears in the entire body of the Illinois Compiled Statutes.

I've sent Ms. Hopkins an email -- I hope to discuss this with her.

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Rich Miller — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:01:19 -0000

Skeeter, being a judge does not exempt one from being called a jerk. Sorry if you disagree, but that's my position.

CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

Re: Jerk of the month *** Updated x3 ***

CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *

Re: Jerk of the month * Updated x3 *