NOT PUBLISHING, IS IT AGAINST THE LAW? OR "FREE SPEECH"?

So the first prosecution witness took the stand today ... 

The publisher, or former publisher, of the National Enquirer tabloid ... I can't recall his name David Pecker (I found his name)... but apparently some gal (you know I don't remember her name either) contacted the rag saying she had a story to tell ... in 2016 - BEFORE the elcetion ...

The National Equirer sent out a reporter to interview her .... she signed an "exclusivity contract" with the paper - saying she would not give an interview with any other source - and the interview proceeded.

Well - after the interview was done, SHE WAS PAID the fee that both SHE AND THE PAPER AGREED ON ... no one got shorted here.

And the National Enquirer decided NOT to actually publish the story .... for whatever reason.

She made a stink about it AFTER he won the Presidency ... I think he was in office for a couple years before she "broke her silence" ...

I'm going to guess she wanted either more money .... or fame ... or both.

The "burying" of the story hit the news .... big time ... but still the question remains ....

IF a newspaper ... magazine ... media of ANY SORT ... interviews a person - exclusive or not - are they LEGALLY BOUND to actually publish it?

OR did they simply pay for the STORY/INTERVIEW ... and not publising it is a choice and not a part of the contract???

I find it interesting that THIS story has actually been linked as an "and also as" in another trial with questionable legal status .... but more of that in a moment, in a different post.

It will be interesting to see how this gets looked at ...

I think it depends on the LANGUAGE used in the EXCLUSIVITY CONTRACT ...

Because if it is considered illegal to suppress a story - the Royal family ... in fact, most of Hollywood, better watch out!!

This is a case of CONTRACT LAW .... not CRIMINAL law.