No Responses

1. Anonymous says:

   March 5, 2005 at 4:59 pm

   Censorship starts small. It doesn’t start with repealing the Constitution, just chipping away at it a tiny bit at a time. Which is why a lot of people make a big issue out of the first step– because if nobody says anything, it leads to the second step, and then the third…

   I don’t know why Mr. Leno is being called to testify so I can’t speak to the facts of this specific case. But if instead of Jay Leno it were the L.A. Times reporter covering the story who was subpoenaed and hit with a gag order, then what would you say?

   Reply
2. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   March 5, 2005 at 11:23 pm

   This is a GAG ORDER. It is done all the time. They are imposed by judges for (among other reasons) the purpose of protecting the integrity of the trial.

   In this case it might prevent a comic from telling JOKES. For you to equate this with a “chipping away at the Constitution” demonstrates a failure to grasp even the basics of the situation.

   We DO know why Mr. Leno is being called to tesify. He’s not a member of the Fourth Estate. He was subpoenaed to tesify because he was contacted by a principal in the case– the mother of the accused. He may have something valuable to contribute. To ask that he not tell jokes about Michael Jackson for a while is not that huge of a deal. This has nothing to do with the Los Angeles Times or freedom of the press.

   Censorship may indeed start small, but this ain’t it. A lot of people make too big of a deal of that which is clearly not censorship. You are being melodramatic for no good reason.

   We can hear it now (with apologies to Pastor Martin Niemoller): “First they came for the late night talk show hosts and I did not speak out, because I was not a talk show host…”

   Reply
3. Anonymous says:

   March 6, 2005 at 7:10 pm

   Embarrassingly to me as an American, a whole lot of people say they get much of their “news” from late night television shows.

   I used the L.A. Times as an anology– what if…

   And anyway, I don’t know how often gag orders are issued but typically aren’t they to prevent the lawyers from trying their cases in the press? From tainting potential jury pools?

   I don’t see how a joke about Michael Jackson’s nose (assuming he still has one at this point) would change what Mr. Leno has to testify about, but as I said I haven’t been following this not-so-newsworthy event. I assume, though perhaps incorrectly, that Leno, unlike Jackson, the accuser, and the prosecutor, probably doesn’t have a vested interest in the outcome of this case, so the gag order wouldn’t be to prevent him from using his influence to try to change the outcome of the trial.

   And since 5% of his monologue has been Michael Jackson jokes, his writers may see it as a big deal that he can’t make them for several months!

   The First Amendment refers to speech as well as press, and I wonder if any lawyers who read this site could contribute some info about limits to gag orders-

   I guess I’ll have to read the paper to see why Jackson’s mother contacted Leno.

   And darn it, it’s a free country, so if I want to be melodramatic (on your site, admittedly), then…

   Yes, first they came for the talk show hosts and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t one. Then they came for the Jerry Springer guests, and I didn’t say anything, for I wasn’t one, then they came for Judge Judy plaintiffs, and I didn’t speak out, and then when they came for me there was no one to stop them, because most of the country watches late night shows, Springer and Judge Judy.

   Reply
4. Anonymous says:

   March 9, 2005 at 6:46 pm

   I see it this way, let’s say you as a comedian joke about a certain topic every time you do your act. Then you are unvoluntarily subpoenaed as a witness in some other person’s legal woes. Does the government have the right to tell you that you cannot make jokes on that topic, something you’ve been doing nightly to make your living for years now (Jackson jokes have a long shelf life) for some indefinate period of time until the case is resolved? Mr. Leno’s challenge to the court will help define the allowable boundaries, IMHO.

   Respectfully yours, Germaine

   Reply
5. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   March 10, 2005 at 2:14 am

   someone posted:

   “I see it this way, let’s you as a comedian joke about a certain topic every time you do your act. Then you are unvoluntarily subpoenaed as a witness in some other person’s legal woes.’

   We reply:

   First of all: You cannot be “unvoluntarily subpoenaed as a witness in some other person’s legal woes.” The courts do not summarily summon people to testify for no good reason. Leno was involved in the case because he was contacted by a principal. This isn’t some sort of witch hunt.

   Secondly, love him or hate him, Michael Jackson is not just “some other person.” He’s a citizen of the U.S.A. and, as such, he is entitled to a fair trial. Subpoenaeing Leno is part of that effort.

   Then, you said:

   “Does the government have the right to tell you that you cannot make jokes on that topic, something you’ve been doing nightly to make your living for years now (Jackson jokes have a long shelf life) for some indefinate period of time until the case is resolved?”

   Uh, YES! It matters not about shelf life or how you make your living. Jackson must have a fari trial. The subpoena and the gag order is all part of that. We often place the needs of the accused above that of our own. There are few, if any, real freedom of speech or expression issues here.

   Does the government have the right to tell you that you cannot make jokes on that topic, something you’ve been doing nightly to make your living for years now (Jackson jokes have a long shelf life) for some indefinate period of time until the case is resolved? Mr. Leno’s challenge to the court will help define the allowable boundaries, IMHO.

   Reply
6. Anonymous says:

   March 10, 2005 at 3:53 am

   This is a criminal case, and the right of the accused to a fair trial may conflict with Jay’s free speech rights (his earning a living isn’t a Constitutional right). If this were the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation it’d be a much more interesting issue to debate.

   – Shaun Eli

   Reply
7. Anonymous says:

   March 15, 2005 at 3:00 pm

   I don’t characterize the issue as a witch hunt. But you can be involuntarily subpoenaed as a witness in another’s legal woes. You don’t have the right to decline to testify, the government can put you in jail if you refuse, I call that involuntary. Michael Jackson absolutely has the right to a fair trial. He is also a public figure and the legal precedent is that public figures can be commented on in parody, satire, etc…that is protected free speech, the right to make fun of public figures.What can Jay testify to? Only that he was contacted, who it was, when, what transpired with this person. As long as his jokes are not about his actual involvement with the principal person in the case who contacted him, he should be free to keep telling Wacko Jacko jokes.US citizens have a right to a fair trial. But if you are going to give the government the right to involve you or jail you, we need to have the terms very specifically defined. Which I believe Jay accomplished in this case via the ruling from the judge on the gag order.

   Reply
8. Anonymous says:

   March 15, 2005 at 3:02 pm

   Whoops, I meant to add my name to that post.That was again, respectfully submitted for your consideration by Germaine.

   Reply