I broke this into a new thread from Kent's 'Wake up call for US Citizens' because I want to take a new spin on it. I have added comments and made edits to reflect those changes in red.
Kent raised an excellent issue about the arrest in Florida of a reporter who violated a Florida law by reporting on an internal police investigation. This is an alarming law! While I can understand the authorities wanting to keep an investigation under wraps until it is completed and charges filed, early disclosure can at times compromise an investigation. But this should be at the discretion of the police to control, as sometimes a little disinformation or misinformation to the press can aid in sorting out an investigation, and helping to expose the real criminal.Nonetheless, to make it a crime for a reporter to go public is alarming. I figure that if the reporter has the story, its fair game.
Federal Constitution: Many Americans misunderstand our Federal and State constitutions and the legal theory our laws are built upon. The Federal constitution was never intended to "grant rights" to the people, nor a tool to limit the rights of the People, such as the case with the now repealed 18th Ammendment which prohibited the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages in the USA. OUR RIGHTS, that is ALL rights are already presumed to be in the possession of the people. The Constitution was really intended to limit and bound government, and what government can do. Why? Because the people of that time were scared to death of Big Organization and Central Power vested in the King and the religion of his choice! Therefore, the US Constitution is a document whereby the people only "loan" limited power to the Federal Government for a limited purpose.
What screwed us up with this piece of history is the Bill of Rights. Some of the Founding Fathers did not want to include a Bill of Rights because they feared that it would be construed that other rights not so enumerated were not self-evident. But they also feared that without a Bill of Rights, the lawyers in Congress would weasel their way into infringing on these 'understood' rights. So, the Bill of Rights was included to make sure they didn't screw with our most basic rights, and that the Bill of Rights also assures that other rights not so enumerated are still the presumed to be with the People and the States, and not the Government. This has worked well, but because our school systems have not stayed with Constitutional theory when educating grade school to high school levels, then one does not always understand this vital legal theory unless they become a lawyer. And even lawyers have lost some of this, such that some have to be known as Constitutional Lawyers.
Federal vs State: But, as good as the Federal Constitution is, it only applies to Federal issues and primarily as it relates to the several States. . The States and the People in those states are not bound by the Federal Constitution, except to be guaranteed a Republican form of government. Otherwise all bets are off. So, a State can ban guns, and religion, and freedom of speech, if the People in that state so choose to do so, or permit their State Government to do so, and the Federal government cannot do squat about it. That is why, technically the South was correct about Slavery from a 'Legal' perspective according to the Constitution. Make no mistake, I agreed and support the North in putting a stop to Slavery by force. The common moral issue outweighed the technical 'legal' issue. But my point is that this is why the South stuck to their position, because our Federal Constitution made provision for Slaves.
The Federal Constitution was later Ammended in the 19th Century to also enforce, in addition to a republican form of Government, the basic rights assured in the Bill of Rights, upon State governments. This was a radical departure from the original intend, but I believe a good move for the most part. However, this Ammendment placed the Federal Government deeper into State affairs, and helped enhance the false notion that the Federal Government grants rights to the People. That is why some Conservatives fight against new rights being 'granted' as it is really not necessary. But Liberals have a point in that some States legal mechanisms need to be dealt with at the Federal level.
In a more modern setting, this States Rights system built into the Constitution is also why the States of Illinois and New York can ban carrying a hand gun, but other States choose not to ban hand guns. Michigan just joined Florida, Texas, Oregon and a handfull of other States in reinstituting 'Conceal and Carry laws'. They could not have had such bans in the first place were they totally bound by the Federal Constitution. The Constitution only keeps Congress from infringing on your rights, to keep power divested to the States and the People in those states. Within those States, however, it is tough crap. The People can vote to do almost anything as long as they maintain a Republican form of government, and now assure something close to the Bill of Rights in the Federal Constitution. This assures that if the People don't like their laws in their States they can either vote to change them or move to another State.
States still have latitude with basic rights: Washington State, for example, allows freedom of speech and the press as does the Federal Constitution, BUT, they have weasel-worded it to say that this is confined to "responsible" speech. Who, then determines what is 'responsible' speech? Ultimately the State Legislature does when enacting Administrative rules and various Criminal Statutes. So, freedom of speech can be watered down at the State level. And unless the People of that State bitch loudly about it, and/or take matters to the US Supreme Court, their basic rights are still infringed at the State level.
Therefore, As alarming as it is, Florida is free to ban reporters within thier jurisdiction from reporting internal police investigations, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, unless the People in Florida decide to change the Law, or in this case, maybe the Press will use the courts and push the matter before the US Supremes. - Amazing