Just curious, why did the DO refuse to give the court a copy of the interview tape?

RoB, this is what Patrick "Buzz" Williams wrote in the paper last week:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2009-11-12/news/federal-judge-barbara-lynn-and-the-observer-go-toe-to-toe-over-a-vague-legal-principle-known-as-the-first-amendment/

That's what I figured, fair enough.

yeah that article has been a linked a few times in the comments, but it couldn't be much less specific about the reasons. First Amendment reasons? People devote their law practices and semester-long classes to that subject.

"Citing to some vague constitutional protection unknown to this Court, the Observer declined to produce the tape to the Court. Because of the Observer's refusal to produce the tape, the Court cannot assess the accuracy of the story..."

HA! "This court" doesn't know the first amendment? Scary.

I'm glad the observer is the crew of principled rebels it is.

Don Hill's probably crying pretty hard right about now.

Buzz's response is a big non-answer.

Why does the DO believe the First Amendment protects the tape? You're not protecting an anonymous source. You wouldn't hesitate to produce the tape if a libel allegation came up. (Assuming, of course, the tape backed up the article.)

So now we have the DO refusing to turn over the tape, a juror saying Sam didn't accurately report what she said, didn't ask obvious questions . . . and now Sam's incognito. Again, I ask: just how accurate WAS Sam's story? Not very, according to the juror.

who can be wrong for taking the law into their own hands when those framed to that structure don't uphold it? Is such conspiracies the Act Of Congress called THE Corrupt Practice Act or The Statute Of Frauds? Where is Justice for a victum in syndicated enviorments?

@ louis douglas williams

1) The first one -- THE Corrupt Practice Act.

2) There is no Justice for such a victum, sadly.