Posted on 10/26/2006 9:57:37 AM PDT by delacoert
A federal judge gave the New York Times a brief reprieve from an order forcing it to identify confidential sources for columns about the 2001 anthrax attacks, but the paper could still face the possibility of being held in contempt of court as soon as tomorrow.
Judge Claude Hilton of Alexandria, Va., issued a two-day stay of a magistrate's order that would have required the Times to name the sources by yesterday. The order came in a libel suit filed by a former Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, who claims he was defamed by five columns written by Nicholas Kristof in 2002.
According to a lawyer involved in the dispute, Judge Hilton said yesterday that he was still reviewing whether the Times should be compelled to identify the sources. He told attorneys that he planned to rule on the issue by Friday.
But the Times suffered a setback yesterday when Judge Hilton upheld a magistrate's ruling denying its request to suspend action on the libel suit until the government completes its investigation into the anthrax mailings, which killed at least five people. While investigators searched a home and storage locker belonging to Mr. Hatfill, no criminal charges were brought.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
If this makes it to SCOTUS, and it probably will, do you think they will be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment?...........
FYI
5 people dead insures that they will NOT be avble to hide behind the First Amendment...or our Judicial system will be broken thoroughly.
Its a lib newspaper, they have a golden road...nothing will happen....
"off the record" and "anonymous sources say" should be relegated to the dust bin of history..........
It is a civil suit. If the reporter refuses to answer the question regarding the source of his information, the jury is to take whatever the plaintiff says, regarding the source, as fact.
The plaintiff can claim the reporter made it up, and the jury will treat that as fact.
Also, the burden of proof required of the plaintiff is "more likely than not" or "weight of the evidence".
They have to prove 51%.
Beyond reasonable doubt is required of criminal proceedings, not in civil proceedings.
Trying to duck behind the 1st amendment or the 5th amendment won't work.
Also, during discovery, the plaintiff is allowed to require production of anything that may lead to evidence. It does not have to be relevant to the case.
While he is at it...Grassley needs to ask Gonzalez to get the Barrett Report out for all of us to see.
They'll demand the Barret Report... when they demand full identification of the documents Berger shredded...
The New York Times, aka Sulzberger's Daily Demonrat, will not be able to hide behind the First Amendment given the SCOTUS handling of the Judith Miller case. The judge should find the NYT in contempt, along with Sulzberger individually (if possible), and adopt as punishment a "progressive" (they should pardon the expression) schedule of fines for both that escalate daily plus court costs: 1st day $1; 2nd day $10; 3rd day $100; 4th day $1000; 5th day $10,000; 6th day $100,000; 7th day $1,000,000; 8th day $10,000,000; 9th day $100,000,000... By day 10 of their contempt, the NYT and anyone named Sulzberger will no longer be a problem.
Hopefully, Nicholas Kristof is also a defendant and subject to such fines.
Tell me if I have this straight:
The New York Times wants access to any government information it says it needs, because it has a "right" to publish anything, including war secrets that may help the enemy.
But when they're sued for libel, they don't think they should have to cough up their sources.
That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. Sounds like the NYT has a God complex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.