Posted on 04/19/2005 3:12:31 PM PDT by stinkerpot65
Thanks, I will check that out!
True, but the courts general only go after reporter's confidential sources as a last resort. This case is a political sham over a crime that never was.
But, there ought to be some protections for the press so that whistleblowers feel that they can get things out anonymously. The MSM sucks, but the press still has an important function in a democracy.
Lots of corruption would never come out otherwise.
It would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Another example might be this: A big city election worker calls Fox News with evidence of massive fraud. He doesn't want to lose his job, but he will send the evidence to Fox only he can remain anonymous.
I disagree. Protected sources are an important way to weed out corruption.
In this day of the Internet, more people will read what I am now "reporting" as a "journalist" here on FreeRepublic than will read my local ink and paper weekly newspaper in a year.
The problem with "journalistic privilege" is that journalism is a trade, not a profession. Anyone who says they are a journalist is a journalist.
If virtually everyone has this same privilege it may make it impossible to get anything done in a court.
But here's another example that shows the dangers that lurk behind the presumption that "whistleblowers" should have some kind of legal protection . . .
A "journalist" for CNN has no evidence of any kind of fraud, but concocts a story of "big-time fraud" with quotes from anonymous sources with ties to an elected official. Providing legal protection to sources makes it impossible to distinguish between legitimate and fictitious sources.
Someone who is called to testify in a civil or criminal court case has no choice but to testify, except in some very narrowly-defined cases (spousal protection, Fifth Amendment, and lawyer confidentiality). Anyone else is simply out of luck -- regardless of what kind of sanctimonious view they have of their profession.
The is the subject of the article. I don't understand your question. Are you implying that she is a liar?
She was a lawyer in the Reagan Justice department. She wrote the law.
What if, instead of Fox, he sends to a blogger. Say Stephan Sharkansky, the Seattle blogger who has played such a large role in revealing the corruption in King County elections.
By definition, Sharkansky is not a "journalist". And his blog is not "a part of the media". If special privileges and immunity is going to be allowed the journalism profession, the first question that should be asked is: What is a journalist?
Unlike doctors and lawyers, there is no special training nor any licensing required to call one's self a "journalist". Nor should there be. So, how does one go about giving "journalists" immunity from prosecution?
True, but no legal protection makes it far more difficult to discover government or corporate fraud.
I don't trust the press, but I trust the government even less. Bush won't be President forever. Now that we have some actual conservative news outlets, we need a protected conservative press in case Hillary becomes President.
Getting down to the nitty gritty.
Personally, I think bloggers ought to have some protection too. The only reason prosecutors need to go after reporters or bloggers is that they wern't getting the job done to begin with.
If government employees were able to pass along info with confidence, all sorts of things would come out, and Bill Clinton would probably be in prison.
New Yiork Times version:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/politics/19cnd-medi.html
"Nor did Judge Tatel offer any apologies today for the eight blank pages that were part of his concurrence in February, presumably setting out the factual reasons why the reporters' testimony was needed. Lawyers involved in the case have speculated that the pages described Mr. Novak's mysterious role in the matter."
MSM hubris. The judge owes the New York Times apologies. And the Times doesn't give the judge's explanation.
As I figure it, the judge is politely saying that even if the rules Stinker advocates existed, the reporters would still lose.
And "journalists", whether MSM or bloggers or the local gossip, would have full freedom to fabricate story lines.
Everybody would have immunity. And there would be no way to corroborate their claims.
SEC v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic 03-CIV-4070
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18169.htm
She was charged with insider trading (links above). The trial was stayed while her perjury case was underway. I don't know how the insider trading case developed, i.e., if she paid the fine, or the case was dropped, or the case remains pending.
True. The rules I advocate don't exist, but they should. The media may pay a heavy price for their little witchhunt in the Supreme Court.
It's fun to watch the MSM get a stick in the eye, but we will all pay the price if we let our corrupt court system control the press. Canadians are learning that lesson the hard way.
She was never charged because she wasn't an "insider". She was not an officer of the company in question.
Read the links and get back to me if you still hold that position.
03 CV 4070 (NRB)COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"), for its Complaint against defendants Martha Stewart ("Stewart") and Peter Bacanovic ("Bacanovic") (collectively the "Defendants"), alleges as follows:
1. The Commission charges Stewart and Bacanovic with committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading. ...
Correction: She was charged but the case was never pursued because the prosecutor had no legal standing. To save face, they went after her for lying, which she did.
Normally, prosecutors don't bother with lying over a crime that never occurred. But Martha was famous.
Suppose a prosecutor is investigating a murder. His chief suspect lies about his whereabouts to cover up a affair. Later, it is discovered that no murder occured because the "victim" simply skipped town.
Does the prosecutor then go after the suspect because he lied?
I was wrong. She was charged but not tried. Why not?
The insider trading case was stayed while the perjury case was tried. I don't know the eventual closure on the insider trading case. It could have been paid (all the SEC wanted was 50 grand, if she was smart, she would have paid that in the first place); or the SEC could have dropped it; or it could be still pending.
I never bothered to look it up. The closure isn't that important. But it is interesting that the [false] meme that she was never charged with insider trading is believed by a substantial majority of the public.
the case was dropped for insufficient evidence.
She supposedly lied to the FBI about something she isn't charged with doing. She still denies that she lied. She was convicted by a VERY carefully picked "I hate successful white people and successful women" jury.
Of course, the FBI and the courts lie to American citizens all the time, but that's "ok."
They're "in charge" so that's "the way it's supposed to be."
Pretty bizarre justice system, regardless of your own prejudices about Martha Stewart.
It may have been. As I said, I don't know how the case was disposed. Do you have a cite for the "dismissed" disposition?
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.