Re: Newspaper article on Plutonium

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Kent N. Lambert wrote:

> The first amendment does not grant wholesale permission to say or
> print anything to any one at any time.  

True.  It only says Congress can't make laws about speech or the press.

Does the idea that there is a
> fire in a crowded theater have merit until demonstrated that, indeed,
> there was no fire? Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not
> "protected" speech.

Unless there is a fire.  Actually, one can go to jail for yelling FIRE
if there is no fire.

> 
> One is prohibited from making slanderous or printing  libelous
> statements, or from stating unfounded claims (e.g., in advertising
> and labelling of products).  An attorney is prohibited from making
> prejudicial statements to the jury, a witness is prohibited from
> making false statements under oath, a supervisor is prohibited from
> making lewd and suggestive statements to a subordinate.

All true.

> 
> Read 10 CFR 30.10 - one is prohibited from deliberately submitting to
> the NRC  information that is incomplete or inaccurate in some
> material respect.  This paragraph was put in to keep Melissa from
> declaring this post "off-topic" and thereby limiting my speech. :-)

So, I will leave it in for the same reason.^_^

> 
> We have clearly established standards in civil, criminal, and
> regulatory law and societal norms that limits these freedoms.  The
> question is, where do we draw the line?

I would love to draw it at  the Free Press article.  but then, the Free
Press should be responsible enough not to print articles such as that
one.  And we must be responsible enough to tell media such as the Free
Press when they have made a mistake such as this one.  Al Tschaeche