This case will surely make the law journals.
Judge James L. Shumate

Yesterday, Utah Judge James L. Shumate ordered a TV news reporter to produce a public-service story because she broke one of his court rules. Apparently, she interviewed a potential juror before the trial of polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs. The judge had barred reporters from talking to potential jurors until after the trial. The TV reporter, Katie Baker says she didn’t know about the restriction. When she was hauled into court, the judge accepted her explanation, but gave her 90 days to come up with a public-service story and bring him a DVD copy or be found in contempt, which means she could go to jail or get a fine.

TV Reporter Katie Baker (click on the picture for more info)

Baker says she was inexperienced in covering courts and didn’t know he had ordered the media to stay away from the jury pool. Yes, people at her station did know, but the story aired any way because the news manager most knowledgeable of the rule wasn’t involved with her story that day. It’s a sorry excuse, I know. But ignorance of the law is no excuse. It’s a legal precedent that was established back in the 1600s by English jurist and philosopher John Selden. He wrote “Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all know the law, but because ‘tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him."

But – and this is a big “but” – even though Baker was wrong and she should be punished, can a judge order her to do a story? A first amendment expert says “The notion that a judge can either compel a journalist to write a story, or sit in judgment on a story to determine if it sufficiently serves the public interest, is extremely disturbing.”

Judges can order drug addicts into rehab, they even can order bad parents (Britney Spears) into counseling, but can they order television stations to air stories?

Sounds to me like this judge is overstepping his bounds.

There are at least 2 different debates going on in different parts of the country about the same issue – the drinking age. Iowa City is considering banning people younger than 21 from bars after 10pm. At the same time, a group based in Vermont is pushing to lower the legal drinking age to 18.

The Iowa City argument centers on binge drinking. Iowa City is home to the University of Iowa. This school has a national reputation for partying and binge drinking. That’s the one thing people in this town agree on. They differ when it comes to how to handle the problem. Some say, “If underage people are allowed in bars, they’re likely to drink.” Others say barring 19 and 20 years olds from the bar would only make house parties more popular and put people at more risk because there are no trained employees to make sure they don’t drink too much. Iowa City residents will vote on November 6.

The groups, “Choose Responsibility” and "National Youth Rights Association" (NYRA) argue, you’re mature enough to vote, can sign contracts and can serve in the military at 18, so why shouldn’t 18 year olds be able to buy and drink alcohol. NYRA believes it's inevitable that young people will drink, so America should find ways to reduce the harm rather than trying to stop it. It argues young Americans drink far more than their European counterparts, who are allowed to drink in the open. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and several other organizations have come out against it. MADD believes young people who drink may impair their brain function making it harder for them to learn. It also warns lowering the drinking age will lead to more binge drinking among youths. The only thing these two sides can agree on is the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has gone down since the legal drinking age was raised to 21.

I know age is the easiest way to determine if a person should or shouldn’t drink, but the real determining factor should be how mature a person is. There are some 18 year olds that are more responsible when it comes to drinking than some 50 year olds. Unfortunately, there’s no test for common sense.