by John Q on November 19, 2004

There’s a story I read somewhere of a judge interrupting an unsatisfactory witness and asking

Are you trying to flaunt your contempt for this court ?

to which the witness replies

Oh, no Your Honour! I’m trying to conceal it.

I was reminded of the story by this NYT editorial, which accuses a Rhode Island judge of abusing the contempt power to pursue a vindictive campaign against a reporter, Jim Taricani, but then fails to name the judge in question. A one-minute Google search reveals that the judge in question is Chief U.S. District Judge Ernest Torres Given that it was defending the right of reporters to publish the truth without fear or favor, what exactly did the NYT have in mind here?



bad Jim 11.20.04 at 10:02 am

Doesn’t the Times have reporters of its own facing contempt citations in the matter of Novak’s revealing of Joe Wilson’s wife’s job?

The name of the Federal judge does nothing for me, though. (West coast parochialism? Go, Ninth Circuit!) Perhaps The Times left it out because nobody cares.


theophylact 11.20.04 at 3:19 pm

Mae West, in My Little Chickadee.


Iron Lungfish 11.20.04 at 8:03 pm

The Times editorial doesn’t name the corrupt mayor (Buddy Cianci) or his bribe-handling aide, either. Hell, I don’t know the name of the aide, and I live in Providence. Yes, the name of the judge is more relevant to the Times’ complaint, but the cause of leaving it out is probably the same – parochialism and simple laziness, more than anything else. But in a national newspaper, to focus on one Rhode Island judge is hardly that important.


msk08 11.20.04 at 9:07 pm

He owns Google stock?

Comments on this entry are closed.