Legal ? and what is considered 'free' speech

[Widder, SASS #59054]

This is my understanding:

When 'evidence' is obtained ILLEGALLY by LEO's, it can't be used in convicting someone of a crime.

AND, if DA tries to use such info in court, the Judge can shut them down and even cite them with 'contempt'.

 

Now here is what stems my question:

 

lets say an unauthorized entity hacks into someones computer and stills some 'juicy info' that can harm someone

politically or socially.

And that unauthorized entity gives that info to a newspaper or magazine to make public.

Because the info was ILLEGALLY obtained, can the newspaper/magazine legally publish the info, although it was 'illegally'

obtained?

 

Would 'freedom of speech'  protection allow such publicity without being liable for the content or the manner in which the

info was obtained (hacked)?

 

..........Widder

 

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

By and large, yes.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

34 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Now here is what stems my question:

lets say an unauthorized entity hacks into someones computer and stills some 'juicy info' that can harm someone politically or socially.

And that unauthorized entity gives that info to a newspaper or magazine to make public.

Because the info was ILLEGALLY obtained, can the newspaper/magazine legally publish the info, although it was 'illegally'obtained?

Would 'freedom of speech'  protection allow such publicity without being liable for the content or the manner in which the

info was obtained (hacked)?

..........Widder

 

Publication of such by private entity would be legal because it's not being used as evidence in a Court of Law to try or convict anybody. 

If such information, true or not, weren't legal, the lamestream media wouldn't have anything to say.

Edited August 18 by Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

"Illegally obtained" evidence can often be used in criminal prosecutions, as long as the 'obtainer' is not working on behalf of law enforcement, indirectly or othewise, and has no law enforcement connection.

 

The 'exclusionary rule' is directed to the actions of official law enforcement.

[John Kloehr]

2 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

"Illegally obtained" evidence can often be used in criminal prosecutions, as long as the 'obtainer' is not working on behalf of law enforcement, indirectly or othewise, and has no law enforcement connection.

 

The 'exclusionary rule' is directed to the actions of official law enforcement.

I have heard LEO lying is not illegal, but a LEO must be honest in court about what the lies were.

 

I have gathered that an undercover officer can lie about being an officer (duh!), and can lie about almost anything until it would become a rights violation.

 

There are also principles like "inevitable discovery." Evidence may still be admissible if it can be shown the evidence did not lead to additional evidence and the evidence would have been found anyway through some other separate legal means. Can't use fruit of the poisoned tree to drive a case, but if there was separate cause to go in to the garden where the poisoned tree is... I find this one concerning as investigators could conceivably use poisoned fruit to construct inevitable discovery; this would therefore get around some 4A or 5A rights violation.

 

Other examples escape me at the moment, 

 

Prosecutorial misconduct is a separate matter, the above is just thinking about front-line investigators.

 

How about a hacker... perhaps a politician's emails showing illegal activities or emails showing stated policy positions are lies... Conceivably the politician would have a civil claim against a hacker. But if the emails showed the politician was involved in an insurrection conspiracy, these would be admissible in court. And a news service could publish the information.

 

However protections for private communications are stronger for citizens not in the public eye. I could not conceivably be of interest to the general public. So if I was hacked and something "embarrassing" was found, I would have a claim against the news service for violating my right to privacy. The hacker could turn over a stolen spreadsheet showing illegal activity to LE. This spreadsheet could be used in court.

Edited August 18 by John Kloehr

[Dilli GaHoot Galoot]

Another question we wouldn't need to worry about if some folks could stop clicking on emails from "the IT department" asking for username and login confirmation  

 

Or making the password "guest" 

 

 

[John Kloehr]

7 minutes ago, Dilli GaHoot Galoot said:

Or making the password "guest" 

Other common bad passwords include "password," "guessed," and "incorrect." Also using whatever your login as as your password is a very poor practice.

[Dilli GaHoot Galoot]

20 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Other common bad passwords include "password," "guessed," and "incorrect." Also using whatever your login as as your password is a very poor practice.

 

 

Edited August 18 by Dilli GaHoot Galoot

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

One time I had to use many systems. On one of them the password was so hard to remember that I had it on a slip of paper stored in my dictionary, on the page for password.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

This is largely what The Pentagon Papers was.

The only recourse the victim would have would be if the info was not true.   Then it's libel and/or slander.

Or, perhaps he could sue the person who hacked for theft or privacy violations, but not the newspaper.

[Dilli GaHoot Galoot]

2 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

This is largely what The Pentagon Papers was.

The only recourse the victim would have would be if the info was not true.   Then it's libel and/or slander.

Or, perhaps he could sue the person who hacked for theft or privacy violations, but not the newspaper.

 

 

Or maybe blow them up in their car like they did for The Panama Papers