[DManA]

It was a classic case of lawyers and activist judges making up the law as they go.

It was a classic case of making lemonade out of lemons,

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Experts say that in many ways lawyers representing the news media have done a remarkable job over the last three decades turning an essentially adverse ruling in Branzburg to their advantage, arguing with success in many instances that the news media does have a privilege to protect sources.

The media's lawyers relied on language in Branzburg by then-Justice Lewis Powell, who wrote a separate concurring opinion that was somewhat sympathetic to the press.

"It was a classic case of making lemonade out of lemons, and to a large extent it worked; the problem is, now the courts aren't buying it anymore," said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and the law at the University of Minnesota.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That single sentence lumps together freedom of religious expression, freedom of speech, freedom to use technical means to publish, and freedom of political speech. From the First Amendment's perspective they are all just one big ball of wax.

There is no distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It follows that the courts should do for me as a speaker what they would do for you as a journalist. If they won't allow me to stonewall a subpoena of information just because I'm a speaker, they have no reason to allow you as a journalist to stonewall a subpoena.

Likewise when Democrats in Congress assay to decide that someone shouldn't be allowed in the "press room" at the White House, when the president chooses to answer questions from particular individuals they are prattling about things completely apart from their jurisdiction. Bush could invite any individual he chooses into the "press room" or the oval office or his private quarters, and discuss any topic he chooses to with him or her. What is that to Congress??

What that is, of course, is Democratic members of Congress carrying water for the Establishment known as "objective journalism." That Establishment self-selects on the criteria of adherence to the liberal concensus; its members implicitly agree that an attack on the credibility of one is an attack on the credibility of all. Journalism's very own NATO pact, not written on paper and signed but agreed to by common consent.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[longtermmemmory]

I think it does make a difference that this involves a serious issue of national security. It is a disclosure of a "spy". This is not some other corruption reveal.