Why should reporters have rights that ordinary citizens do not have?
Posted on 11/22/2004 1:20:24 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Reporters would not be forced to reveal their sources, and their notes, photographs and other material would be protected from government eyes under a bill introduced Friday. Amid a spate of First Amendment fights pitting the government against journalists over confidential sources, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., proposed the legislation as critical to ensuring the nation's liberties.
"Democracy is premised on an informed citizenry," Dodd said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "A free press is the best guarantee of a knowledgeable citizenry."
Journalists contend the First Amendment, which established freedom of the press, gives reporters the right not to divulge their sources. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have "shield laws" to protect the media from disclosing sources in state cases.
But no federal law exists, and special prosecutors in a number of high-profile cases have aggressively pursued journalists. The possibility of jail time looms for some.
A television reporter in Rhode Island was convicted of criminal contempt Thursday for refusing to reveal who leaked him an FBI videotape of a politician taking a bribe. Reporters for Time and The New York Times have been held in contempt as part of an investigation into the disclosure of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
Under Dodd's bill, the federal courts, legislative or executive branch could not compel a journalist to provide the source of information, whether or not that person has been promised confidentiality. That right would extend to a journalists' notebooks, photographic negatives and other material.
The bill says a court could force disclosure of news in cases in which it is critical to a legal issue, the information cannot be obtained anywhere else and an overriding public interest exists in the disclosure.
Lawyers who have handled First Amendment cases welcomed the legislation as overdue.
"The advantage of a shield law once and for all is defining the privilege and establishing what the scope is," said Kevin Baine, a lawyer at Williams and Connolly.
Bruce Sanford, an attorney at Baker and Hostetler, cited the courts' respect for confidentiality in certain relations - priest and penitent, doctor and patient, husband and wife - and argued that it should apply to reporters and their sources.
"It's an issue of open government and whether the public receives the information they need," Sanford said.
Dodd, the lone sponsor of the measure, introduced the bill in the waning hours of the congressional session, but promised to reintroduce it when a new Congress begins in January. He voiced optimism about gaining the support of Republicans and Democrats, noting that several states with shield laws are conservative, GOP-leaning states.
That point was echoed by media lawyer Laura Handman of Davis, Wright and Tremaine who said, "Informing citizenry really crosses party lines."
John Strum, president of the Newspaper Association of America, said the bill would allow journalists to do their jobs without fear of penalty.
Wow, Dan Rather could realy manufacture some juicy stories with this law in place.
Booo! That places reporters as a protected class above the average citizen.
950 stolen FBI files.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY EVER
950 stolen FBI files.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY EVER
950 stolen FBI files.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY EVER
950 stolen FBI files.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY EVER
950 stolen FBI files.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY EVER
Why should reporters have rights that ordinary citizens do not have?
Garbage.....I will be very surprised if the GOP goes along with this. I also thought that the courts have already said there is NO SUCH 1st Amendment protection given to reporters and that they must divulge their sources for any criminal investigation???
While there is an argument, a good one, to support this law for shielding, there is a constitutional premise that seems to trump it. In the promotion of such a shield law, there is the inherent supposition that being a newsman is a superior class of American citizenship. That just does not follow the old adage that we are a nation of laws and not of men. If a newsman believes that he must shield his source, then he must be equally willing to pay the price. It seems that supporters of the proposed law want the opportunity to facilitate the destruction of a legitimate criminal investigation but not the requisite corresponding result of being responsible for one's own actions. In the final analysis, the Constitution does not provide for different classes of citizenship.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Branzburg case that the First Amendment does not require that reporters be given a privilege to protect the identity of their sources. So it is not a First Amendment requirement.
In light of that decision, many states have passed "shield laws" that do provide some protections to journalist to protect the confidentiality of their sources. But these protections are not absolute and give way under certain circumstances, particularly when it is a criminal defendant who wants to know the information (because the 6th Amendment right to compulsory process outwieghs any journalist interest in maintaining confidentiality).
So, there could, in fact, be situations under this bill where a journalist would never have to reveal a source (such as if it is the prosecution, not the defendant, who seeks the information).
What qualifies someone as to being a 'Journalists'.
Gee. What a great cover for a spy.
Why should the press be forced to reveal such sources. I don't even want to go to the real stuff where terrorists were able to avert...
Dodd is obviously owned and operated by the Mainstream Media.
This "different class of citizenship for journalists" argument really does not hold up.
They way to look at this is in the context of evidentiary privileges in the law. The law recognizes that we won't get information out of some people on some occassions. The reason we allow this is to foster certain relationships. For example, the attorney/client privilege - we foresake getting possible relevant information (what a client tells his lawyer is propably REALLY relevant information!) because we want to foster openness in that relationship so the lawyer can do his job. Same with doctor/patient, wife/husband, etc.
The argument for journalists is that the journalist/source relationship is important to society and should be fostered through a privilege. They argue that society would not get important information because sources will not "talk" unless they are promised confidentiality. Justice Black, who wrote the opinion in Branzburg, did not buy this argument, he did not believe sources would "dry up" without this pledge, and so he rejected the argument that the First Amendment required the privilege.
So state (and now, it appears, federal) legislatures have been the ones figuring out how far (if at all) the privilege should go, etc.
Journalists are absolutely wrong about this. There is nothing in the First Amendment that even hints at such a "protection." This sanctimonious crap about First Amendment protection for journalists is nothing more than an attempt to elevate the members of one of this nation's most mediocre professions to that of a lawyer or doctor.
This would give Dan Rather more power than President Bush--Bush would be compelled to testify under oath, but Rather could hide behind this law.
Don't like it --- not one bit and the fact that it is a Dem-Dodd suggesting it, just makes me more against it.
Exactly, ask Rush about the doctor/patient thing---didn't work for him. But somehow a newspaper in Chicago was able to get ahold of "sealed" divorce proceedings without permission from either party..
Talk about tyranny of the majority by the minority!!
You'd also wonder whether any Republicans ever introduce any bills, because the AP never seems to write about any. It's always "Democrat says this," "Democrat introduces that," "Democrat warns Bush," as if the goings-on in Washington are conducted exclusively by Democrats. This is what the Associated Press sells to its member newspapers as "the news." If you really want to know what's happening in Washington, you might as well cancel the newspaper, because it's not going to be in there. All you'll find out is what the minority party is haplessly ranting and raving about. I guess that Associated Press reporters don't know that Democrats are in the minority now. Either that, or they're just Democrats themselves and they actually think these publicity-stunt news conferences are important. |
Ahhh...
So, is this legislation designed to protect Dan Rather and John Kerry, or is this legislation designed to protect the Democrat sources who gave those Democrat reporters the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame scoop?
Hmmmm.....
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.
Oh look, another Associated Press article about a pointless press conference staged by another Congressional Democrat. From the way the AP covers these things, you'd think that bills introduced by Democrats are on their way to becoming law — instead of being blatant publicity stunts, which is all they are.