you're reading...
Celeb Gossip, Top News

They will try to silence this paper anyway they can,but ask yourselves why? Freedom of Press?Freedom of speech?

The Paranormal Herald,has been the target of police conspiracy,fraudulent reports being made, calls to my personal telephone,even and apparent phone conversation.

This article has been remanded based on new information,that has came to light,p[lease do read the following link, as they say in this particular case freedom has wrung loud and clear, we thank the local law authorities in their response to clear the for mentioned article up.


There are over 400 responses from at least the same three folks.One of these folks even made a complaint in their home town.There are  more then three questions I will be asking the Governors office and the police chief,in their home town tomorrow.

#1 Why would any police officer make or have a man call my cell phone, him using the said phone? the complainants phone number was recorded as the call on my caller id cell phone?

#2 As apparently and officer made the call or had the  claimant call,why would and officer tell me or try to bargain with me to remove articles I wrote for the Herald?Does the officer know the man personally?

#3 How is it the officer can dictate, or give legal advice, such as this is a cease and desist as he said?

#4 Why didn’t the said police officer give me a badge number, so I would know he was and actual cop?

#5 Why is the said cop allowing same individual to harass this paper,even after I notified the man, that there were hundreds of threats and posts? Why would said cop not want to see them? as he did state?

#6 When I spoke to this apparent policeman, and I told him about and actual investigation into another state by the said man,why would the cop not want to know about it is he crooked as well? or just misinformed?

This Paranormal paper,stands by the great freedom of speech laws.

Freedom of Speech

The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government  or state restriction.

Freedom of the Press

The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction; this right encompasses freedom from prior restraints on publication andfreedom from Censorship.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the press.” The courts have long struggled to determine whether the Framers of the Constitutionintended to differentiate press freedom from speech freedom. Most have concluded that freedom of the press derives from freedom of speech. Although some cases and some legal scholars, including Justice Potter Stewart, of the U.S.Supreme Court, have advocated special press protections distinct from those accorded to speech, most justices believe that the Freedom of the Press Clause has no significance independent of the Freedom of Speech Clause.

The Court explained its reasoning in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1978). According to Chief Justice warren e. burger, conferring special status on the press requires that thecourts or the government determine who or what the press is and what activities fall under its special protection. Burger concluded that the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment adequately ensure freedom of the press, andthat there is no need to distinguish between the two rights:

Because the First Amendment was meant to guarantee freedom to express and communicate ideas, I can see no difference between the right of those who seek to disseminate ideas by way of a newspaper and those whogive lectures or speeches and seek to enlarge the audience by publication and wide dissemination.

The Court has generally rejected requests to extend to the press Privileges and Immunities beyond those available to ordinary citizens. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972), it held that ajournalist’s privilege to refuse to disclose information such as the names of informants is no broader than that enjoyed by any citizen. As long as an inquiry is conducted in Good Faith, with relevant questions and no harassment, ajournalist must cooperate.

Justice Stewart’s dissent in Branzburg urged the Court to find that a qualified journalistic privilege exists unless the government is able to show three things: (1) Probable Cause to believe that the journalist possesses information that isclearly relevant; (2) an inability to obtain the material by less intrusive means; and (3) a compelling interest that overrides First Amendment interests. In an unusual break with tradition, several circuit courts have applied Stewart’s testand ruled in favor of journalists seeking special First Amendment protection. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has steadfastly held to its decision in Branzburg, and shows no sign of retreating from its position that the First Amendmentconfers no special privileges on journalists.

Laws that affect the ability of the press to gather and publish news are suspect, but not automatically unconstitutional. In Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 111 S. Ct. 2513, 115 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1991), reporters for two Twin Citiesnewspapers were sued for breach of contract when they published the name of their source after promising confidentiality. The reporters claimed that the law infringed their First Amendment freedom to gather news unencumbered bystate law. The Court held that the law did not unconstitutionally undermine their rights because its enforcement imposed only an incidental burden on their ability to gather and report information. Writing for the majority, Justice byron r.white said that laws that apply to the general public and do not target the press do not violate the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against members of the press has an incidental burden on their ability to gather andreport the news: “Enforcement of such general laws against the press is not subject to stricter scrutiny than would be applied to enforcement against other persons or organizations.” The Cohen decision indicates the Court’s continuedunwillingness to extend special First Amendment protection to journalists.

Generally, the First Amendment prohibits prior restraint, that is, restraint on a publication before it is published. In a landmark decision in near v. minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), the Court held that thegovernment could not prohibit the publication of a newspaper for carrying stories that were scandalous or scurrilous. The Court identified three types of publications against which a prior restraint might be valid: those that pose a threat tonational security, those that contain obscene materials, and those that advocate violence or the overthrow of the government.

The government argued that publication of certain material posed a threat to national security in the so-called Pentagon Papers case, new york times co. v. united states, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S. Ct. 2140, 29 L. Ed. 2d 822 (1971). There, thegovernment sought an Injunction against newspapers that were planning to publish classified material concerning U.S. policy in Vietnam. The Court found that the government had not proved an overriding government interest, or anextreme danger to national security if the material were to be published. The justices reiterated their position that a request for a prior restraint must overcome a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.

The Court is steadfast in its holding that prior restraints are among the most serious infringements on First Amendment freedoms and that attempts to impose them must be strictly scrutinized. In Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427U.S. 539, 96 S. Ct. 2791, 49 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976), the Court overturned a state court’s attempt to ban the press from a criminal trial. The Court held that gag orders, although not per se invalid, are allowable only when there is a Clear and Present Danger to the administration of justice.

Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is not absolute. Notwithstanding the limitations placed on it, the press exercises enormous power and influence, and is burdened with commensurate responsibility. Because journalistsgenerally have access to more information than does the average individual, they serve as the eyes, ears, and voice of the public. Some legal scholars even argue that the press is an important force in the democratic system of checksand balances.

In the wake of the September 11th Attacks in 2001, the White House placed pressure on the five major television networks not to broadcast videotaped statements by terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and his associates. Thenetworks had shown a videotape of bin Laden, and this angered the White House. In early October 2001, the networks agreed not to show such statements again without reviewing them first. The decision came after a conference callamong U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and the heads of the networks. The White House feared that broadcasts from suspected terrorists could contain anything from incitement to coded messages. This agreementaroused concerns that the press was forfeiting its responsibility to report all of the news. Commentators noted that the rest of the world would see the bin Laden tapes via television and the Internet, and that the security concerns raisedby the U.S. government thus would have little impact.

The balance between restraint and responsibility continued to be tested during the war against Terrorism and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In contrast to the 1991 Gulf War, where the press was kept away from the battlefield, the war in Iraqfeatured “embededded” journalists, who traveled and reported in real time among the U.S. forces. However, the press was restricted to disclosing only certain types of information due to security concerns


MY NAME IS EVAN JENSEN A PARANORMAL EXPERT IF THERE IS SUCH A THING. I myself being involved at various aspects of the paranormal have come to realize it is a field riddled with conmen and frauds hoping to evade the public and con as many as possible. This paper I.E blog site has stopped many from doing such. It is a free site for those needing help and wishing to spread the news of there fellow con people.


10 thoughts on “They will try to silence this paper anyway they can,but ask yourselves why? Freedom of Press?Freedom of speech?

  1. First off you all are pathetic any one with any intelligence knows you can’t stop someone from posting articles blogs etc if it not a threat! You all have no lives you have posted a lot of articles on him and his cost! How about you belong in jail or have a restraining order? It’s useless to talk to uneducated wanna be people! All you all are is exactly what this and OTHER online papers , blogs, blog talk shows etc. is trying to spread awareness to stop! You obviously love the police and cops that you waste everyone’s time how about the tables turn and people start looking into all of you on your welfare but payin for blog talk shows having you food stamps but $500+ paranormal equipment! There’s a lot of us out here that are not Evan Jensen time to find out how to get you in trouble for the self employment you all post about here! Fake psychic Judi the intuitive and the fake intuitive on welfare fraud now take a hick!

    Evan can you delete these people’s comments ? It’s really getting annoying reading these pathetic single woman I would assume with cats, a broom & coffee NO real JoBs

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Nicole | October 30, 2015, 2:15 pm
  2. their comments are being forwarded to the states attorney office every interrogative comment if they are from the same folks yes indeed.because their comments filter to my personal email, the local pd cited that is electronic harassment and said since they have filed on me to silence my articles and myself,they will indeed be investigating and a report will also be filed along with one that was filed three weeks ago.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by BEYOND THE EDGE OF REALITY | October 30, 2015, 5:48 pm
  3. Nicole those women love me or they would not want so much attention, they even make fake reports, so they get more attention. there are good fans then there are bad fans.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by BEYOND THE EDGE OF REALITY | October 30, 2015, 5:50 pm
  4. ok you do realize that it is CT not mi


    Posted by lee | October 30, 2015, 8:33 pm
  5. So that means Darnesswithin is going to cast black magic at whom she doesn’t like? Not a thing makes any sense this article does include any of you. I am guessing the next group will be based on magic? We’re just going with the book of the paranormal and going to be able to do everything lol

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Charity | October 30, 2015, 8:57 pm
  6. Nicole has every write to say what she said in regards to ALL of you! It’s not being in your business NOONE wants to hear it! You all post non stop so now random people are going to be judgemental since that’s all the group of you post is Evan this jan that Evan Evan Evan bla bla bla bla. You can’t except to write on someone e paper, and not have people write back! In fact when we all Google you we find the articles in the papers and it says you teach and are the intuition one! That is from google it brings up everything since you can’t force the ct papers to take stuff down. I hope more people start commenting maybe it will give you all a realty check to get the heck off the damn site

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Charity | October 30, 2015, 9:01 pm
  7. so why is it I put a comment and it posted then it disapeered

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by lee | October 30, 2015, 11:37 pm
  8. thanks for your opinion heather.


    Posted by BEYOND THE EDGE OF REALITY | November 1, 2015, 3:09 am
  9. Hey thanks Nichole, nice to have people speak out for Evan and I. I’m getting bashed right along with him, I was the person that got threatened, it wasn’t me who threatened anyone. I don’t do that kind of thing, never filed harassment charges in my life, don’t bash people and Judi is quite aware of all that.
    We’re gonna get a black spell put on us now, lmao??? Hey guess what, I’m gonna send that black spell right back on them, it will never reach me. Let God in all his glory deal with them, I don’t have to do a thing.


    Posted by spiritualwalks | November 6, 2015, 6:59 pm
  10. glory be god crushed any sort of witchypoo spell sure does

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by BEYOND THE EDGE OF REALITY | November 7, 2015, 12:29 am
%d bloggers like this: