simple effective remedy and it requires no new law. I'm all for ignoring Esquire into the earth.

truth in a timely manner.

Not paying a source is an important journalistic principle. A book deal is where an individual should expect profit.

If any entity purchases exclusive rights to a story, that right can only hold for 72 hours. That would give any media entity the head start it needs on an "exclusive". After the 72 hours passes, the person then has the right to go to another media source. If no one wants to print it, that's fine. But to buy an exclusive to a pertinent story to bury it forever does not seem to be in the spirit of a free press or the people's right to know. It seems the opposite. Maybe the right could by 7 days, or even 30 days. But no one should buy a story in order to suppress it forever.

includes the right of not speaking.

The suppression of a story should have a shelf life. The principal who sold that story to a media outlet can then tell that story to another, or not, as he or she feels.

problem or a legal problem. That's the problem of someone who regrets willingly and openly signing a contract with the Enquirer knowing who they are and how they are. We don't need new law to protect these people, we need people to think a little bit. Let her take her money and hire a lawyer specializing in contract law.

Would you take a real news story to Enquirer or the NYT? That's the question she didn't ask herself. Let alone the time it takes to fact check and develop a story.

No offense: your new law is bad law. Once I buy something from you, what I bought is mine. Ask Robert Mondavi what he has to do to label a wine bottle these days after selling his vineyard and name.

He bought Charles Krug's name and labels his bottles 'CK Mondavi.

The person sold the story, expecting it to be published. Unless the contract specifies that the magazine may or may not publish it, they bought it under false pretenses.

Not exactly consistent with the First Amendment.

It's government regulation of shady contracts.

If NE was paid to keep a story under wraps, and the NYT got a tip for the same story, there's absolutely nothing that prevents the NYT from publishing, cause they weren't paid to do a damn thing.

It strikes me as the same as the old adage 'the answer to less democracy is NOT Less Democracy (again), it's MORE DEMOCRACY.

I think this isn't about freedom of press. It's about willing to publish, and that's a different animal.

it's that they can't prevent another media entity from printing it forever.

Catch and kill should be illegal and will be on trial in the Enquire case. I will be rooting against Trump and company. How about you?

Doing it to impact an election may very well be, but we allow the press a pretty unfettered freedom, and I don’t think we’ll see the idea of catch-and-kill disappearing in any general sense.

And I think that means we're on the same page. A newspaper (even one as distasteful as the NE), can print or not print whatever they want. I'm not gonna say the reason for their decision has to be moral or ethical, just legal. If the payment to not publish can be demonstrated to be a quid pro quo, or to constitute an in-kind donation to the trump campaign, then hell yes put them on trial and put the screws to them, and that goes for Trumpy as well.
But if NE didn't wanna publish, and the NYT got wind of the same story and went ahead, it's not like the NYT did anything wrong.

“Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom. . . of the press” means that Congress should make a law abridging freedom of the press?

A media entity can not enter into an agreement to stifle the right to know. They can purchase a story in order to print it. If they choose not to (which is their right) the exclusive right expires after a reasonable time period.

In this day and age of anyone claiming to be the press, like Briebart, what's to prevent an unscrupulous media owner, like, say, David Pecker, from scouring for stories involving an elected official, like, say, Trump, buying up those stories with contracts that prevent anyone else from printing, and placing them in a safe. Then, informing the elected official that he has the stories and using them to blackmail, say, somebody like the President of the Untied States.

If he wants the story to print, great, buy and print it. If after the purchase he decides it's not newsworthy, fine, don't print it. But to prevent anyone else from printing it to protect a government official or hold to for blackmail, that should be a crime.

Where does it say a media entity cannot enter into such an agreement? What law states that an exclusive right expires after a reasonable amount of time? It seems to me that an exclusivity contract spells out the terms of that exclusivity, and if their is no expiration clause, then the exclusivity doesn’t expire.

You’re making an assertion, but you’re not backing it up with any kind of legal precedent.

Yeah, in the instance we’re alluding to there’s a legal issue because of the election, but what about, for example, buying a housekeeper’s story about being knocked up by Arnold Schwarzenegger and sitting on it? It sucks, but how is it illegal?

Why the Enquire is being prosecuted in the Cohen case. The Enquire bought a story to kill it to advantage Trump. The government says that's an in-kind campaign contribution which is illegal for a corporation and exceeds the limit for an individual and wasn't reported.

The enquire will argue that it's a first amendment right to purchase a story and choose not to publish. I'm on the government's side on this and against the Trump-Pecker side. How about you?

working in tandem with a media outlet to kill a story, obviously the government’s side.

In a more general sense, if you’re unscrupulous enough to demand money for your scoop then the media you’re dealing with are unscrupulous enough to catch and kill your exclusive and you deserve to see it die. I don’t want to see silly limits on the 1A enacted because greedy people get taken by scummy people. A pox on both their houses.

Why couldn't the person selling their story simply have the contract written to say that the exclusive rights to the story were for a limited time period?

interpret that understanding of that contract was that the outlet would publish that story. The court can then determine that the principal should assume a 30 day window. It shouldn't be catch and kill, it should be catch and release.

Why not just write a contract that says that?

That can be done right now, without changing a single law.

As it stands, it's a good chance your way gave us President* Trump.

I don't think for a moment that the interpretation of a catch and kill contract that nullifies such actions is in violation of the first amendment.

If you had a news outlet, and I had a story that I wanted to sell, we could enter into many different kinds of contracts.

1. I could give you my story, in exchange for money, with the understanding that you had exclusive rights to it forever...even if you chose never to publish it. (It would state that clearly in the contract, so the Court wouldn't have to assume, or interpret)

2. I could give you the story, in exchange for money, with the understanding that I wouldn't give my story to anyone else for an agreed amount of time. (It would state that clearly in the contract, so the Court wouldn't have to assume, or interpret)

Those things can happen right now, with no new laws at all

If my only interest was in getting my story out, I wouldn't even be entering into a contract. I would be giving my story out freely.

are far more naïve' then the people who want to suppress it.

If a person selling a story wants to be sure that it gets published, then they need to have that explicitly spelled out in the contract. And if the buyer of the story doesn't want to accept those terms, go find another buyer. This isn't rocket science, as they say.

All the NDA's in congress can be nullified because taxpayer money can't be used to hide information from taxpayers. The first amendment shouldn't be used to hide information from the public.

I understand that a private NDA involving a corporation or individual is valid. But it is not a leap for a person to believe a media outlet is buying a story to print it, not hide it. I can easily see a judge invalidating the Enquire stories it has in a safe for that reason.

They pay for info. They are not a part of the free press.

According to reporting in The Washington Post, executives at the National Enquirer sent articles and cover images pertaining to Donald Trump or his electoral opponents to Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, prior to their publication.[48] The Post reported that this practice has continued since Trump became President of the United States.[48] American Media Inc. denied sharing material prior to publication.[48] Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed American Media Inc as part of their investigations into Michael Cohen for possible violation of campaign finance laws.[48][49]

According to reporting by The Associated Press, during the 2016 United States Presidential election, stories that supported Donald Trump or attacked his rivals bypassed the newspaper's standard fact checking process.[35]

Donald Trump reportedly suggested stories to David J. Pecker - sometimes via Hope Hicks and sometimes personally - including a negative story about Republican primary opponent Ben Carson.[48]

Like Pravda is to Putin, the National Enquirer is to Donald Dump.

I'll agree, it's sleazy. When the story is about a politician running for office, it does appear to be an unreported campaign contribution, which might be legally actionable. Since the Enquirer is owned by a corporation (American Media, Inc.), it would seem to me that there's a potential stockholder lawsuit there, since management is using corporate funds to further some personal agenda.

THEY OWN THE STORY and 1st amendment does not remotely apply

it does not protect it to suppress information. If the Enquire doesn't want to print a story, that's their right. But they should not be able to enter into a contract to prevent other outlets from printing the story, if those other outlets so desire. Thus, an NDA with a media outlet should have an expiration date.

The Enquire could work as an arm of the government or a government official, buy up damning stories that the government doesn't want published and use that contract to prevent any other outlet from publishing it.

That is a first amendment violation, in my opinion. The Constitution supersedes contract law.

You're arguing that the government should regulate private agreements relating to speech. Exactly backwards. As the Supreme Court has recognized, telling a newspaper what can or can't be published is a violation of the First Amendment.

It is fraudulent to buy a story with the intent never to publish it with the intention to bury it. I'm not sure a law the OP proposes is the answer, but they are correct otherwise.

Look past just how you are mad about this one instance.

First, your proposed law is just as much, if not more, an infringement on a free press as what you are mad about. Probably more so, since in this case the Congress would be actually stepping into the news room and telling media how and when they must publish.

That sets a very bad precedent.

Second this kind of artificial timetable would lead to media who are working to vet a story and make sure its legitimate face a conflict between doing their duty as journalists to properly vet a story or rushing to press irresponsibly to keep their exclusive.

If a person selling a story thinks it’s so important then can either choose to just go public and not ask for money or else put a clause in the contract demanding publication in a certain timeframe or they loose the rights. If the source doesn’t do that then they didn’t feel it was that important, or felt getting paid was more important.

can only be bought, by contract, for a specified time. 72 hours, or 7 days or 30 days. After that, there is no exclusivity. That doesn't mean it is automatically published, it just means that the individual with the information is free to go to another news outlet. They may or may not publish, but the right to "bury" a story is not in the public interest and should not last forever.

The public's right to know outweighs the contractual obligation of suppressing a story in an individual's self interest.

Who determines what is “public interest”?

And what if the source is perfectly happy with it being buried? What if the person is happier being paid and not being in the public eye than being paid and the story being public, and really needs the $$$?

And it still sets a very dangerous precedent of government interference in the press. The decision not to publish is just as important as the decision and right to publish.

Let me see if I'm able to be more clear. ABC News has a story about a spy in the administration. Their source is paid in order to keep the story exclusive. ABC News is in bed with the current administration. They surprises the story. The source is now prohibited, by contract, from telling that story anywhere else.

The answer to your question is that the rest of the private sector, public information entities will decide what's in the public interest. If the principal is no longer prohibited from telling his or her story, any other outlet will decide whether or not to publish.

In my suggestion, a media outlet can buy a story and have a pre-determined time frame to publish or broadcast. After that time has expired, the principal is free to peddle that story elsewhere. If an outlet thinks it's news worthy, they will publish or broadcast. What the Enquire is buying in the first place is the scoop. If they don't use that advantage in a certain time frame, then the principal is free to go elsewhere. That, to me, is freedom of the press.

Let’s say a news reporter or photographer was doing something and caught wind of a story or got a photo that they knew would be of public interest. But they also knew that the story could affect politics in a way they didn’t want to happen.

Should they be allowed to sit on the story?

If so, how is it different than if they are the first to find out a story and pay the source?

Let’s say this- photographer takes a photo. He immediately recognizes that photo could be damaging to a candidate. Maybe the Dukakis has n the tank photo. Maybe a photo of a candidate with someone they are having an affair with. People ask him to not publish it so he doesn’t.

Now let’s say instead the photographer sells the rights to the photo to someone who chooses not to publish it.

How are those two things different? Or if not, should the photographer be forced to release the photo because it’s in the “public interest” and should that decision be based on what other media outlets think of it?

making an agreement thinking the story is going to be printed and then sees it killed. They are selling exclusive rights. What a reporter decides to print, or not print, is between himself and his employer. There is no obligation.

What you have is a person looking to make a buck by seeking to sell their story as an “exclusive”.

If you want to impose requirements on people’s rights to contract, your culprit is the person with something that “the public has a right to know” as you put it and, instead of telling the public, is seeking to maximize the dollar value of it to them.

Just require people to publicly disclose things the public has a right to know, in your view, and skip a step.

...if they choose not to, that's their right. But a court could easily decide that the "implied consent" is that the media outlet bought the exclusive rights to beat the competition to the punch. The court could then decide, if the individual, like Stormy Daniels did, wants to be released from that contract to tell that story to another media outlet, that that person is free to do so because enough time has passed to nullify the initial contract.

Freedom of the Press gives the right to any media outlet to print anything the want, or not print anything they want. It does not allow a media outlet to buy a story so the public will never know about it. A media outlet that buys an exclusive right to a story should have a time period, determined by the court, to print that story or the contract is nullified.

A media outlet should not be in the business of buying exclusive rights in order to kill a story. They can print it or not print it, as they see fit. But after a reasonable time, the principal can re-sell that story or give it away.

Freedom of the press is the right to inform the people or not inform, not to prohibit information from reaching the public.

What would prevent a government allied media outlet (like Fox News) to buy an important news story (human nature will lead to selling that story) only to PREVENT that story from reaching the public? What is wrong with, after 30 days, any news outlet agreement expires and any other outlet is free to print that story and source it from the principal, it they so wish?

than the person who produced the work.

You just severely limited the ability of every freelance reporter and photographer to do their job. Because many of them sell work, be it stories or photos, to news outlets that don’t print immediately. Sometimes because they decide not to run the work, sometimes because they want to hold it for a time when it’s beter to run, sometimes because they want to spend time building up more research around it, etc.

For example let’s say a photographer catches a photo that would be embarrassing to a candidate if it was published. They sell the rights to media outlet X. Media outlet X now owns the rights and can choose to publish or not. Let’s say outlet X is MSNBC and that candidate if a Democrat. MSNBC investigated for several weeks and leans the photo is not what it seems, was taken at a time/angle that makes it look like something it isn’t. But it can easily be taken out of context by outlets like Fox.

Should MSNBC be forced to publish or relinquish the rights to that photo to outlets like Fox?

Or, let’s say the photographer got the photo and knows it can be damaging. But they also know it is worth a ton of money to them. What if they offer to sell rights to a friendly news org or even a third party who they know won’t publish, so they still get paid yet don’t have to sell it to Fox. Should that be allowed?

What if a photographer gets a photo and just gets asked by a candidate or political organization to not publish it? What if they get paid not to?

Lots of photos and stories get bought by media outlets who don’t run them immediately. Your proposed law would make that no longer happen, and would make everything public domain after a few weeks.

There are so many problems that can come from this hairbrained scheme. It will cause outlets to run with stories they don’t fully investigate and vet to meet artificial deadlines, it will greatly harm independent journalists and photographers who depend on the ability to sell their works. And it sets a very bad precedent for infringement on freedom of the press. It also attacks property rights, as ownership of rights to a story are every bit as much real as ownership rights to any other intellectual property.

in order to give the purchasing outlet a "scoop". If the purchasing outlet does not see fit to use the work, the original freelancer, after, say 30 days, is free to sell it to another outlet.

rather than obstruct a freelancer, my suggestion empowers them that if the original purchaser doesn't use his work, he can see the fruits of his or her labor appear in another outlet and get 2 paydays.

Freelancers want to see their work published, nor suppressed.

they enter into an agreement that ensures their store will see print. Otherwise, tough titty.

We'll see if "catch and kill' can survive legal scrutiny. David Pecker didn't accept immunity because he didn't do anything wrong. to purchase a story to suppress it to the benefit of a candidate for public office will be determined to be (or not be) an illegal, in-kind campaign contribution. I'm rooting for the prosecution in this case. Are you?

The Enquire bought a story (the one with Susan McDougal) for $150,000 with the intention to kill the story and prevent anyone else from publishing it. The government contends that the killing of the story advanced Trump's campaign and should be declared as an "in-kind' political contribution. If everyone who criticizes me here is right about this that it is a press freedom, to buy a story to kill it, then the Trump-Pecker team will win. But if I'm right, that killing a story to advance the cause of a politician without reporting it as a political contribution, then I'm right.

After all, when the Boston Globe endorses Hillary Clinton, they are affecting the election, yet have no obligation to declare that as an 'in-kind contribution". Yet buying a story by creating a contract to kill it is a crime.

We'll see.

What you are doing is changing your entire argument.

This trial isn't happening because of the 'catch and kill' aspect of the case. It's happening because the chance that there was a campaign finance violation.

In your OP you never mentioned anything at all about campaign finance violations....not once.

If the 'catch and kill' part of the case had happened regarding someone that wasn't running for office, there wouldn't be a trial.

and refuse to run it/ Media outlets advocate all the time for candidates. that advocacy is worth something.

The case is not about running a story, it's about not running a story.

If a media outlet paid the doorman at Trump Tower $30,000 for a story in October, 2016, and printed it, that would not be a violation of the campaign finance law, but if they bought it and killed it, it would. The basis of that opinion is that to catch and kill a story means that not only does the purchasing media outlet not print the story, the contract prevents any other outlet from printing the story, thus making that $30,000 a campaign contribution to the candidate. The essence of my argument is the prevention of the information from being disclosed.

First, it was nobody should be able to enter into a 'catch and kill' contract. You proposed a new law that would keep people from doing that.

Now, you're all about campaign finance violations.

Here's my one, and only point:

If I have a story to tell, and I want it put out there, I can give it to as many outlets as I want to. I can hold press conferences. I can mail my story to every publication out there. I can post it on Youtube, etc.

If I have a story to tell, but my priority isn't on getting it out there, but getting paid for it..I still have options. I could enter into a contract with somebody (for money, of course) that specifically says they have a certain amount of time that I can't sell my story to someone else. Or....I could give somebody exclusive rights, forever, to my story (presumably, for more money). Maybe they will publish my story, maybe they won't.

No new laws are required.

and each case is decided on an individual basis but comes with the same theory.

The first amendment was written to assure that the people have a right to know.

A law (NDA's) that prohibit the people to receive information violates that right. It does so in the case of the catch and kill during a campaign in more vivid forms. Each case that is coming to light in real time validates my claim.

Another example is the use of taxpayer money to create an NDA in Congress to shield elected and appointed officials from the disclosure of sexual harassment. Those contracts should also be nullified and the individuals will not be obliged to give the money back.

You see, I'm on the side of the people's right to know, to be informed and not to shield rich or powerful people from the scrutiny of law and disclosure.

That position doesn't change one bit, it expands with every example that becomes available. It is consistent and the Trump's and Pecker's of the world are afraid of that transparency. That's the whole point of my original post and it applies consistently throughout the use of similar interpretations of existing law. The world has changed and powerful people are exposed if we stop allowing them to misuse the law by applying the opposite reason that the original law was intended.

You said: The first amendment was written to assure that the people have a right to know.


No, it wasn't.

Then you said: A law (NDA's) that prohibit the people to receive information violates that right.

You're calling a thing (NDA........non-disclosure AGREEMENT) that isn't a law, a law. And, you're saying that this thing that you say is a law, but isn't, violates a right of the people that doesn't exist.

and we will see aspects of my theory play out in court in the coming months, so we'll see if a person can establish a phony media outlet in an effort to con people into giving him exclusive rights in order to suppress a pertinent story. We'll see if keeping a safe full of secrets in order to hold derogatory information over the heads of important people is protected by the first amendment. Me, I don't think so. But, who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see. Maybe Pecker committed another crime we don't know about that he needed immunity from other than this scam he was running. But, as I've said numerous times in this reply, we'll see.

Oh, and by the way, if you've read the Federalist papers, the first amendment was absolutely written to protect the people's right to know.

A summary of Federalist 10 by Hamilton;

Freedom of speech and of the press served one purpose in America: To remove the fear of the common law doctrine of seditious libel so citizens could freely speak or publish without license their grievances against public policy or conduct of public officials. One of the distasteful things found under the common law was the government practice of criminalizing or shielding itself through requiring license to publish of any criticism it felt made people dissatisfied with their government or government established religion.

16 states have nullified the use of NDA's in private or public settlements.

I'm guessing this would apply to Newspapers, too.

http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20180825/states-reconsider-confidential-deals-in-workplace-harassment

And, also according to the article you cite, such legislation has been introduced in sixteen states, but only six states have passed such laws to date.

But that is an entirely different situation from including an NDA in a voluntarily agreed to civil contract.

Nice try, though.

...leading the way to '"the people's right to know".

The individuals can keep the money in 6 states and are released, by the law, to tell their story.

Where did I hear that theory before?

That's an entirely different situation. In those settlements, the choice is either agree to the NDA with this particular employer or no settlement. And, as was also mentioned in the story, eliminating NDAs in those situations also reduces the incentive for the employer to settle as the employee will often not want to have to go through a trial and all that that entails. But regardless of all that, it is a whole different animal from what you're suggesting.

What you're talking about is a situation where the "seller" can go elsewhere to try to get another publishing outlet to pay them for their story without an NDA.

But you've made it clear that you're going to believe that what you want no matter what and nothing is going to convince you otherwise, so enjoy and have a nice day.

In the sexual harassment settlements, the victim agrees to not tell a soul in exchange for money. The person can not divulge any information in that settlement. 6 states have now nullified those agreements, allowing victims to speak. If the Enquire has similar agreements, the precedent is now set that the government can overrule those agreements and release the individual from that restraint. I not only think it's similar, but I think it's exactly the same.

Oh, and by the way, I have a nice day every day, with or without your permission.

If the an employee of the Enquirer was sexually harassed at work, and they (a victim) were coerced into signing a NDA to keep it quiet, those new laws would invalidate that agreement.

Laws are written with specifics in mind. That's why these laws actually are worded to explicitly say 'sexual harassment'.
Words mean things. That's why these laws don't say: 'Nobody can make an agreement to keep anything a secret'.

Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2018, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

...should be exempt from remaining secret. The NDA is being revoked for the public good, sexual harassment or any other reason. They are no longer sacrosanct and can be overridden by the court for the public good. That's the "similar" I'm talking about and results will be exactly the same.

We'll see what happens with Trump's stories in Pecker's safe. We'll see if they can stay secret because of an exclusive contract or an NDA. We'll see soon enough.

It says Bills were INTRODUCED in 16 states. It says it became law in SIX of them.

From the link that you provided:

They introduced bills in at least 16 states this year to restrict the use by private employers of non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

also

Lawmakers in California also took action this past week, sending two bills to the governor. One, championed by actress Jane Fonda and former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, would prohibit employers from requiring nondisclosure agreements related to sexual misconduct as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

The other would ban settlements in sexual harassment or discrimination cases that seek to keep the circumstances secret.

None of those things have anything to do with a newspaper not publishing a story that they were granted exclusive rights to.

If this case isn't about catch and kill?

It's not about the actual practice of 'catch and kill'.

And also Woody Allen.

It is irritating when people get the First Amendment wrong. Usually it is the right that does it, but we on the Democratic side do it as well.

First Amendment is about what the Government can and cannot do regarding the freedom of speech. Private companies and individuals are not bound by the first amendment. You can say you love Trump all you want and say Obama was born in Kenya all you want, but not in my house, not in a store I own, or not while you are working in a company I run (unless I am connected to the government in some direct way).

The National Enquirer is a disgusting rag. Always has been. However, if a person sells a story or information to the NE and signs a contract for exclusivity, then the NE can do what it wants with the information. Of course, that does not stop the person from going on to other outlets and telling the story, but it exacts a significant financial penalty from the breach of contract.

...making the principal believe that they will print it and then bury it and invoke a contract that prohibits the principal from telling his or her story to anybody else.

To me, that's a violation of free speech and a free press.

I agree that the Enquire can refuse to publish a story. They can also buy the exclusive rights to that story. But those rights are to print it. If they decide not to print during a specified time, it should nullify the agreement. They're paying for getting the story first, not to suppress it. That goes against everything that is America.

The buyer can publish or not if they structure the contract correctly. What they can't do is use the publishing or holding of a story to extort dollars or favors from the subjects. This is why they need immunity.

If you buy a car 'as is', you pretty much own it, and any problems it might have. Especially if you've had a chance to inspect the car .

If I sell you a car 'as is', and the transmission falls out a block after you drive it away from my house....that's your problem. It might have been running great the day before.

I think the only way you can get around the 'as is' thing is if the car you bought wasn't the car that was advertised. For instance, if I advertised the vehicle as being a 2012 model, but it was really a 2008 model.

the 'great running order' was in writing. Even then, the 'as is' might trump that.

Isn't the payment and signed contract implicit agreement to publish the story.

Who would sign a contract for a story knowing the money is being used to shut you up? If one wanted a story out there and they signed an exclusivity contract, and then didn't get it published because the entity really intended to bury the story, wouldn't they reasonably consider the contract to already be in breach?

So, that leads to question 2: If one did accept the money, but with the reasonable expectation that they were signing a deal for exclusive rights to a story that would be published, and it didn't, is the contract in breach due to a reasonable expectation of publication?

I'm an engineer not a law expert.

Contracts are what they say. Not what someone intended to say or thought was implied. Like you stated, anything else becomes a he said, she said argument that nearly always will never supersede what was written and signed

For your used car example, if you buy "as is" good luck getting a court to force the seller months later to replace the transmission. It's not happening

No one is forced to sell a story to anyone. If you really wanted to ensure the story was printed, than make it contractual or don't agree to an exclusive. Of course, if you say that you are still going to peddle the story to every other outlet, the Enquirer (or anyone else) is going to pay you a lot less.

buys the story, a judge could decide that the person signing the contract had an assumption that the story would be printed and the he sold the story giving the media outlet that exclusive right. Now, it that contract was with an individual, that's different. The assumption would be that it was an NDA.

You notice that the Enquire contracts are not standard NDA's but exclusive rights contract. A layman can assume that the media is in the business of printing stories, not suppressing them.

A judge, therefore, could put a shelf-life on any media contract with an individual without hurting the first amendment in the least.

before they affix their signature? Problem solved. I don’t assume anything is implied by a contract unless spelled out.

A contract with a publisher does not imply an agreement to publish?

A contract straight-up states what is being agreed to. That's the whole point of a written contract.

I'll take your word on it that you were actually looking at your contract law book from twenty years ago while you were typing your response. It's good that it "explicitly says otherwise"...if not we'd have to try to assume what it was implying.

My point is, a good contract doesn't leave important stuff out.

You said yourself: Items "not specified in the contract are assumed to meet the standard of the reasonable person"

The whole point of having a written contract IS to specify the important stuff. That's why they exist.

And i admit i was in b school a long time ago, but i'd be curious to see if contract law really changed much since that book was printed.

The MBA books are all i have left after someone broke into my car and took all the text books in advanced chemistry and mathematics. (Long story about why they were in the car.) Somebody probably ended up using them as kindling. Lost 3 of my 4 diplomas, too.

No good point in paying to suppress a story temporarily. More likely, suppressing Trump stories was no loss. Trump paid the bill. What is more interesting is what Trump was worth to Pecker. He owns hotels, deals with exclusive clientele. Trump knows everyone's peccadillos. His maids clean out their trash. I bet he's an unnamed source in lots of juicy stories about other celebs.

I would dearly love to know who orchestrated and how much money they spent on the birtherism crap. Pecker did his part to post anti-Obama stories back in the day.

Disclaimer: These are posted merely to show the ridiculous lengths Pecker went to harass Obama. I guess we won't find any stories about Obama buried in the safe. When I googled the covers, I was sur[rised by how many there were. Every time I shopped for groceries during the Obama years, whether I consciously spotted these covers or only subliminally was aware of them as background noise at the checkout counter, Pecker tried to poison my mind with his propaganda. It is revealing that the conditioning quit working at any level at all when Pecker started putting Trump on his covers as I actually turned them face down for months until they quit putting him on the covers. Nevertheless, Pecker is a dick no matter how we look at it.

...and that implication can be determined by a court.

We're talking about media outlets, not individuals. An NDA with an individual can put a lid on anything for as long as they want. But a media outlet has either an obligation to print a story or pass on printing. They should have no right to suppress.

A media outlet could be used by the government, or a government official, to suppress pertinent information. For instance: I have a story if great public interest that could blow the lid off government corruption. The Enquire calls me and wants to pay me $100,000 for the exclusive rights to that story. I think it will be printed and I get $100,000. The Enquire then suppresses that story and never prints and prevents me from releasing that info to anyone else. you think that should be sanctioned a legal? Watch the Stormy Daniels case and you'll see a land mark decision that a "reasonable time" will be established in the assumption of exclusive rights of a media company to release a story or allow someone else to.

I'm selling the exclusive rights to a media outlet to print it first.

If you truly believe the story is in the public interest hold a press conference or properly negotiate a contract. Greedy and/or dumb people don’t get a lot of sympathy from me.

A scoop is with something and I am signing assuming that. A media outlet that buys a story to suppress it is misusing it's constitutional rights. In a few months, we'll see in the enquire can get away with what they did. I hope the Trump side loses. how about you?

How are they “misusing” their Constitutional right? I see a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, but I do not see an attached proviso in the Constitution enumerating any particular set of responsibilities being imposed in exchange for the use of that right.

Of course I hope Trump loses, but only because there seem to be issues of payments being arranged from the campaign and his team to the Pecker to perform the catch-and-kill process. This doesn’t invalidate the right of a publisher to kill a story, but rather it raises issues of campaign spending and payment in kind.

And seriously, it’s “Enquirer”. You keep keep writing “Enquire”. It’s killing me, man

that's where my argument succeeds, as will the prosecutors when they bring Pecker, Cohen and Trump to court. The Enquire can advocate for any candidate, but if they buy a story to suppress, that is an illegal campaign contribution, and that conviction will prove my point.

They spell them out. That’s why one reads them, and why one consults an attorney before signing. If it doesn’t state they have an obligation to go to print then guess what?

In this specific case the fact that they were suppressing the story to impact an election and seem to have been doing it in concert with the campaign raises legal issues, but it hardly invalidates the right to catch and kill in a more general sense. You’re confusing a specific instance with a broader issue, and then bringing in unrelated Constitutional issues that are entirely inapplicable.

You’re probably right that this was a payment in kind and violated campaign laws. Had your argument been stated as such you’d have received no push-back. But you brought ina bunch of absolute hogwash and codswallop about the 1st Amendment and the idea media should have to publish an exclusive in 72 hours or hand it back regardless of the terms of their contract and those ideas are inherently wrong.

I think most of us are on the same side here in a specific sense, we’re just not buying your larger argument about imaginary responsibilities of media not to “misuse their rights.”

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2018, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

If that wasn't the case, there would be no arbitrations and AAA does pretty good. I have 3 union cases pending in Boston on what a contract implies right now.

I have one right now that has to do with a racetrack and that they have to have an electrician at the facility every "racing day". They have had one every simulcast racing day for 22 years and every live racing day for 22 years. Now, they contend that "Racing Day" means only live racing days and we say racing days mean simulcast racing days and live racing days and the fact you did that for 22 years implies we're right. They disagree. The outcome is pending. So, please, don't tell me contracts don't imply things. Those types of interpretations happen all the time. That's why we have arbitrators and courts.

I’m going to give you that one. I overstated, clearly.

Making them poorly written contracts......

for the purposes of suppressing information. The 1st amendment is to protect the public from the surprising of information.

The Enquire doesn't have to print, but it cannot, as a protected media outlet, prevent other protected outlets form obtaining and printing the story.