| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| U.S. Supreme Court urged to protect reporters' "right" to protect sources |
| 2005-05-11 |
| The Supreme Court has been asked to throw out contempt orders against two journalists who refused to reveal sources in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity. Lawyers for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller want the justices to clarify protections reporters have in keeping sources confidential. Cooper's appeal was filed Tuesday; Miller's was made Monday. The Supreme Court ends a nine-month term next month and could not consider the cases before next fall. Cooper and Miller face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime... Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story. A federal judge held the reporters in contempt last fall, and an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. And here is the lede, buried at the end: Lawyers for Cooper argued in their appeal that without protection for confidential sources, journalists cannot keep people informed. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #11 Any and all accused have the right to know thier accuser, and to know the full merits and or demerits of the allegations against him or her - the only only thing the USSC is gonna do is to to slowly but steadily nullify their own authority as the Third Branch of Government responsible for the interpretation of laws and the adjudication of the accused.Judges and COurts will no longer determine the merits of allegations or defend the rights of any accused - the police, Government Agencies and the Medias, etc. will determine whose guilty or innocent, as dependent by ratings, budgets, and political nepotism. We'll need Socialism, Big Govt., and Regulation just to make sure Mom is still Mom, Grandpa is still Grandpa, and Your Name is Still your Name, iff only for the time being, as per the politics and special interests of the moment!? The Failed Left, Clintons and Commies wanna kill America forever,and they have no qualms inducing or getting Americans to destroy themselves and their Nation! CLINTONISM > mainstream or middle America is already Communist, Socialist, and anti-American, where the GOP, the Right, and alleged Ameri FASCISM is both devolved from and controlled by the Left and America's Communist-LeftSocialist majority while existing surreally apart and unique from the Left. A per se hated Nazi/Hitlerist/Fascist is till a hated Nazi/Hitlerist/Fascist, but a Communist is a Nazi/Hitlerist/Fascist whose still for Marxism, Stalinism, Leftism and Communism, i.e. a good, societally respectable Nazi/Hitlerist/Fascist!? Now lets all be Clintonians and PC hope for US military invasion, stalemate or defeat ags North Korea Iran, etc. while ranting ags War - let's all vote in 2008 for Hillary and her People's Waffen SS Soviet Cookie Corp and Cupcake Getapo Red Guards and the StalinPanzers, D*** You!? SQUEEZED A CHARMIN WO PERMISSION, BAKED A CAKE AT A MERE 275 DEGREES, DID YOU, WELL YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL AND GUANTANAMO, MISTER! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-05-11 23:46 |
| #10 And, if the Clinton people had been able to force journalists to reveal their sources, how many of these scandals would have stayed hidden? None of these were national-security violations, which the MSM loudly proclaimed about the Plame brouhaha. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-05-11 10:55 |
| #9 shhhhh RC.... interesting that the reporters in this case continue to stonewall. Haven't all the good (i.e.Republican) suspects gone on record as allowing the reporters to disclose their involvement, if any? Who does that leave?....hmmm... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-11 10:37 |
| #8 Moose, none of those scandals depended on anonymous sources. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-05-11 10:28 |
| #7 Actually, I will disagree with the majority opinion on this one. There are more than adequate ways for the federal government to pry information from journalists when they really *need* to--just not free license to do so when some whistle-blower steps on their toes. Which is the majority of the time. All sorts of skeletons in the closet, dirty tricks, scams, schemes, rip-offs, partisan political stunts, and cheats done with the complicity of corrupt officials are the norm. And such villains *hate* to be whistle-blown, and always want to punish the whistle-blowers. This goes back to the "muck raking" journalists of the 19th Century, who exposed graft & bribery, prison and insane asylum abuses, military contractor corruption, foreign government influence peddling, illegal voting practices, lethal pollution and unsafe food preparation, organized crime, child sweat shop labor, etc. Now, in none of these circumstances, you might agree, should the politicians and officials *responsible* for them in the first place be allowed to track down and eliminate, punish, or exterminate whoever leaked the truth to a journalist? And just thinking back to the Clinton administration, how many whistle-blowers exposed the travel office scandal, the Castle Grande & Whitewater scandals, the cattle futures scandal, the Chinese fund-raising scandals, ad nauseum? And, if the Clinton people had been able to force journalists to reveal their sources, how many of these scandals would have stayed hidden? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-11 10:27 |
| #6 Long before there were 'confidential sources', we used to enjoy some aspect of true and effective journalism. Since the community has thrown away quality, there is no need to create immunities. Clean their own house first, then come seeking standing. |
| Posted by: Spoluper Hupenter1939 2005-05-11 09:51 |
| #5 Lawyers for Cooper argued in their appeal that without protection for confidential sources, journalists cannot keep people informed. For small values of "informed". Anonymous sources are an excuse to print rumor, lies, and outright fabrications without accountability. An ethical press would limit their use to verified information in cases when the source's life could be in danger. A bureaucrat "risking" his career is not enough. A background briefing from an administration official is not enough. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-05-11 07:38 |
| #4 The shield does not apply nor was it ever ment to apply in national security cases. Good luck, I can see you getting smacked down. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-05-11 04:54 |
| #3 And without the power to compel, the courts cannot function. Which is more important? |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-05-11 02:09 |
| #2 This is a smokescreen. They are willing accomplices to the 'crime', assuming one actually occurred. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2005-05-11 00:20 |
| #1 Great - the Supreme Court is going to invent another right out of thin air. I can't wait for more ethereal pronouncements about umbras and penumbras. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-05-11 00:10 |