Saturday May. 26, 2012
Comments on:
Subpoena for online commenter information issued in Justine Winter case
Let’s be civil.
The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail webmaster [at] flatheadbeacon.com.

The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

By mooseturd on 09-06-10
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


Hey, all you writers, post a comment and join the defense’s witness list.  It might keep you off the jury though.
By Rich on 09-08-10
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


I’m thinking the change of venue should be granted. The young lady has a defense and her story needs to be heard by a totally impartial jury. After that, the verdict will have been based on fact and not emotion. My heart goes out to both families. There can’t be a true winner with everyone drowning in such sadness. Lets get it right.
Rich
By kalispelling bee on 09-08-10
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


Did I read this right? An attorney involved in a criminal and civil case got a subpoena for the Interlake to reveal the identities of readers who said mean things about his client under the guise of a venue motion and the newspaper gave it to him? Beacon, is that true? Did the newspaper fight the subpoena? Why hasn’t the Interlake written about this? Has the Interlake notified its readers that their information is now a part of the court record??