Was it illegal for Nancy Pelosi to tear up her copy of the State of the Union address? President Trump has claimed it was illegal for Nancy Pelosi to tear up her copy of his State of the Union address, as it was an official document. Is there any law stating that it is illegal to tear up official documents, and does this qualify under that law as an official document?
While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA), to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this law does not apply to print outs or widely circulated documents. Moreover, the copy of the State of the Union that she was given is not a governmental record. Therefore, House Speaker Pelosi did not violate the Presidential Records Act, nor any other federal law. However, it is open to debate whether Pelosi's action was appropriate, though I will not supply my opinion on that matter.
My understanding is that &quot;the record&quot; only refers to the official record of the proceeding, e.g. the transcripts that would be kept on file and used as the basis for formal decisions. Such records are usually prepared after the fact by a court reporter based on their shorthand notes or audio recordings, so this indicates that the reporter should simply leave out the statement in question when creating those records, perhaps replacing it with a marking saying &quot;(stricken)&quot; or something of the sort. &quot;Stricken from the record&quot; doesn't indicate that the statement is to be kept secret or scrubbed from all history in some Orwellian fashion, merely that it should not be considered in any legal decision-making process (e.g. a judge's ruling). The decision should be made as if the statement had never been uttered. Anyone else in the courtroom -- lawyers, journalists, members of the public -- is free to remember it, write it down, publish it, shout it from the rooftops, or etch it into stone tablets, if they wish. No penalties exist for doing so. I also don't think there is any requirement to delete it from the court reporter's preliminary notes or audio recordings; again, only from the final official transcript. (There could be other situations where it is forbidden to record or divulge what was said: secret grand jury proceedings, material under seal, gag orders, etc. But those would all require some sort of regulation or order outside the usual meaning of the phrase &quot;strike from the record&quot;.)
It would be illegal because only you are allowed to view the comic you purchased. Creating a copy of your comic (e.g photcopying, scanning etc) is not allowed, and showing others a copy of your comic is also not allowed
Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of it. In many cases, the transfer of ownership happens upon delivery (for example, in the UK), so that you can't even be sure you own the contents while the box is still on the truck. At least in the eye of many postal services I know, it is the basic presumption, that they hold the item as entrusted. So to be on the safe side, it's best to presume that the package only becomes your package the moment you sign for the receipt of the package or it is dropped into your mailbox or at your dedicated dropoff point (you can specify that with many postal carriers btw). Otherwise, your actions might interfere with the contract of the mail service [to bring it to your door] and might incur liability upon them as their insurance presumes the parcel was lost and it has to be replaced. By the way, it is customary that any message of the parcel is damaged go to the sender, not the receiver so that in the case of commercial mail they can send/fund a replacement, as the sender needs to ensure that a non-defect item is delivered under their own contract with the recipient. Criminal lawsuits But, you want to know which specific law you'd be sued under 18 USC §1708 (2) not only for taking the box, but also for taking the item from the box (emphasis mine)! Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The act of taking is relevant. It is irrelevant that you would receive the parcel later. You take it from the car on the delivery route. You also do trespass under whatever jurisdiction applies where the car is parked. For example, Criminal Trespass on Indian country is defined under 25.CFR § 11.411 (b). The rules in other jurisdictions are very similar: you are not allowed to enter the car, as it is clearly off-limits to the general public. The car is btw. supposed to be closed to prevent such, so you have to actually break property of the postal service (which is an extra charge to just the normal B&amp;E). (b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, he or she enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by: (3) Fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders. A car door, even if not locked and left ajar, is an enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders, and the inside of a car is &quot;any place&quot;. So, in the correct jurisdiction, this statute of criminal trespass does apply. And as pointed out above, taking the mail without the driver knowing is illegal. In some fashion, taking your own mail is also a strange case of obstructing the correspondence, which specifically calls out that the parcel has to be given by the mailman to the recipient (emphasis mine). Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If it is discovered by the driver while still on route, they will have to call the base and investigate the missing parcel, which takes time from the delivery, so might constitute retarding the passage of mail. If you break the lock to the car, you'd be charged as Injury to mail bags: Whoever tears, cuts, or otherwise injures any mail bag, pouch, or other thing used or designed for use in the conveyance of the mail, or draws or breaks any staple or loosens any part of any lock, chain, or strap attached thereto, with intent to rob or steal any such mail, or to render the same insecure, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. A Postal car, especially with a lock on the door, is such a device. And if you somehow had the key to the car, you'd break 18 USC § 1704 instead. Plus, your taking does possibly incur monetary damages to the postal carrier, so civil charges for that money and expenses in investigating would also accrue against the taking person. civil lawsuits? If you'd take the parcel, you make the postal driver accountable for the loss of the parcel and the worth of the package, as the internal system of the postal service does recognize that they did not deliver the parcel, did not scan it out at the home base, but they did scan it onto their route. So unless they can point the finger at you or a known thief, they might need to admit that they did not lock the car or committed some other misconduct that allowed someone to steal the parcel. This can lead to the financial loss of the delivery driver or them being fired. Should the mail carrier or the postal service discover it was you, the mail carrier can now sue you for the injury the lost parcel meant to them as you interfered with their work contract. The tort is Tortious interference. Then, the mail service can sue you for intentionally interfering with the delivery contract the service had with the one ordering the delivery done: they were required to bring the parcel to the target and got paid for that. Only your action of taking did prevent this. Would you not have taken the parcel, they would have delivered, so you interfered with their contract. Life Advice: Approach the driver, get out a photo-ID (Drivers license, passport, ID-card etc) and ask them something akin to this &quot;The website told me you might have a parcel for me. Can you look? I am this person, and this ID proves I live at the target address, as indicated on this ID.&quot; With those credentials in hand, the postal driver can check and give it to you but isn't technically obligated to. But as it often means they can save a few valuable minutes getting to your house, they might, especially if you know your mail carrier and are friendly. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely for letter mail to be given this way, as searching for a parcel on a truck is much easier than looking for the letter mails in the bags.
The courts are never in such a broad position to rule on generic wikileaks evidence. Theoretically, a court could have to rule on the admissibility of a specific document, so in that sense the matter is always dealt with on a case by case basis. There is a &quot;document&quot; that purports to be somehow from Amazon, reporting that a certain grey building with no architectural charm in a nearby village is an Amazon data center. Legally speaking, nobody cares, but let's say that there is some legal reason why it matters whether the claim is true (I stipulate that the document passes the relevance test). The publicly-posted document has no probative value, because anyone can create a file containing the word &quot;Amazon&quot;. It looks like a cleaned-up OCR scan of a printout (hence the complete failure at non-English characters), and lacks any clear indicia of Amazon origin. Thus the party would have to establish that the document is authentic, and there must be a provable chain of custody from the author to the submitted document. Federal Rules of Evidence cover questions of authenticity and contents of admissible evidence in art IX, X. Nothing in rule 901 suggests that such a document would be admissible. Very theoretically, if they happened to also have the original paper document, there might be sufficient forensic evidence to prove that the document is traceably come from the purported source. The wikileaks document per se would still be inadmissible, but the (more) original document could be admissible.
First, I don’t believe the author is using quotation marks to indicate an actual quotation, it is being used for emphasis and to group the words as a concept. That concept is that while it may seem undemocratic for a judge to overturn a law enacted by a democratically elected assembly, the “higher democracy” is that it protects the democratic institutions themselves by limiting the power of the legislature to what the higher law of a constitution allows.
This is an important question that affects consumer advocacy, blog-based-journalism, political speech and spending, and probably other things. People disagree about what the answer is. This podcast episode features both sides of the argument. Professor Volokh holds the view that the freedom of the press is "freedom to print", "freedom to use the printing press". Freedom of the press is the freedom of everybody to use the printing press. Assessing the grammar of the clause, he argues that this points in the same direction. The text says "freedom of speech or of the press". He points out that speech is not a group of people. It would be odd to treat "speech" as an activity, but to treat "press" as a group of people given the parallel construction. This side of the argument is described more in this article by Prof. Volokh. Professor West argues that there is a defined group of people called "the press" that deserves protection under this clause. This article explains Prof. West's position in detail. The main point is that "An expansive definition of the press means virtually complete overlap between press and speech and thus no meaningful way to interpret the Press Clause." If "press" means simply the right to publish speech, then it becomes redundant because courts have held the right to publish speech is given under that "speech" portion of the clause. Justice Stevens's concurrence in Citizens United also argued for "some kinds of identity-based distinctions" regarding whether a person is a member of the press. Each side can give examples of the term "the press" being used at the time of the First Amendment that is consistent with their favored interpretation. I think to get the best idea of the two sides to this question, you should read Citizens United (including all dissents and concurrences), read the two articles linked above, and listen to the podcast episode.
The fact that something is illegal does not imply that it is illegal to post pictures of it happening. In general, under U.S. law, free speech protects almost all forms of communications subject to a handful of narrow exceptions and this is not one of them. There are many legitimate reasons one might want to post video of a fight (e.g. to identify crime perpetrators for purposes of prosecuting them), but no legitimate purpose is legally necessary. Surely as a platform Reddit cant hide against it being a platform of free speech in this case? They most definitely can. Reddit is also not responsible for user posted content under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, even if it were illegal for the person posting it to post the content