Talk:Man arrested for broadcasting Hezbollah television in New York

I believe the reference to the first amendment is inappropriate. When there is a news report on Executive order 13224 being challenged on first amendment grounds, then you can reference it. Otherwise it is leading the reader to a conclusion. In addition, listing the constitution as a source is inappropriate. It can be used as a reference when verifying an assertion from a source based on it. For example, had the accused's lawyer said it was a violation of the first amendment, then you could put all the pieces together. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is the news report. -Edbrown05 08:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing false about it. -Edbrown05 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I must've missed the bit where someone phoned the lawyer and confirmed he was using a first amendment defense, or a law professor was asked if 13224 violated the constitution. Otherwise it's just opinion/speculation that you happen to agree with. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, found a source for the first amendment thing . Doldrums 13:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dated today, so that's how long it has taken the NYT (may their register to read system shrivel up and die) to get expert opinions.  My perhaps not too well put point is that we can't express an opinion, but we could do what the NYT did and ask recognised experts.  Then the report is on someone else's speculation. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)