Skip to comments.
WSJ: Two Reporters Now Face Prison For Contempt
Wall Street Journal ^
| June 28, 2005
| JOE HAGAN
Posted on 06/28/2005 5:39:25 AM PDT by OESY
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Hark! More proof of the existence of a benevolent God.
1
posted on
06/28/2005 5:39:26 AM PDT
by
OESY
To: OESY
2
posted on
06/28/2005 5:41:24 AM PDT
by
verity
(Big Dick Durbin is still a POS)
To: OESY
Maybe they could get Dan Rather to join them.
3
posted on
06/28/2005 5:42:23 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Don't Tread on Me; Live Free or Die)
To: OESY
The government's position has been that reporters shouldn't have special privileges allowing them to impede a criminal investigation.
I'll probably get flamed for this but I do, for the most part, agree with this position.
4
posted on
06/28/2005 5:45:28 AM PDT
by
HEY4QDEMS
To: OESY
Lawyers for Time magazine and the New York Times argued that the 33-year-old case was outmoded in light of the large number of states that had adopted a privilege in the interim and shouldn't be allowed to override the First Amendment and federal common law....Liberals thought it was funny when Bob Novak was being threatened, now that 2 of their own are in danger, suddenly it's not so funny. Serves 'em right.
5
posted on
06/28/2005 5:45:33 AM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(If you agree with Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
To: OESY
My faith has returned, not in the courts, but in God.
6
posted on
06/28/2005 5:45:37 AM PDT
by
TGOGary
(I would blow my brains out before ever wearing a blue beret!)
To: OESY
No more protecting thier own. Criminals. The leaker must be a democrat or these 2 "reporters" would have spilled their guts a long time ago. Any bet on who it is? Leaky Leahy? Sen. Depends.
7
posted on
06/28/2005 5:45:59 AM PDT
by
Ron in Acreage
(It's the borders stupid! "ALLEN IN 08")
To: Paladin2
I believe Rather would forge the Bible to have passages about GW in it.
8
posted on
06/28/2005 5:46:36 AM PDT
by
TGOGary
(I would blow my brains out before ever wearing a blue beret!)
To: OESY
They deserve this. No crime was comitted in the first place, but the liberals thought they could get W. So they pressed for an investigation, now it is hitting them and they are whining. Serves 'em right.
9
posted on
06/28/2005 5:47:53 AM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: OESY
Lock em up, it will teach these 'editorialists' (I cant call them journalists)the downside of using anonymous sources.
10
posted on
06/28/2005 5:50:29 AM PDT
by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
To: All
Always wondered when anonymous sources used; how do we know that the reporter isn't sitting at keyboard making this stuff up for his/her own political agenda?
If story is true and can be verified, why does one need anonymous sources; if story is not true and cannot be verified then it does not need to be in public domain.
Security reasons trumps privelage of the press anytime.
Media has been able to hide behind this mantra for along time without any consequences; its about time that one needs to be called on for national security reasons.
Jail time might be a good start in this case.
11
posted on
06/28/2005 5:51:49 AM PDT
by
MrsTn
To: OESY
Couldn't happen to a better bunch.
To: All
Can anyone explain to me why it is that Novak wrote the article, but these two face jail time? What am I missing?
To: Royal Wulff
Maybe Novak is cooperating with investigators?
To: Royal Wulff
That was discussed on Fox & Friends. There was speculation that Novak gave them the information they wanted.
15
posted on
06/28/2005 6:08:44 AM PDT
by
mware
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
To: OESY
Now will see if the are willing to go to jail in order to protect Joe Wilson.
16
posted on
06/28/2005 6:20:25 AM PDT
by
funkywbr
To: OESY
Reporters have all the legal rights of citizens. I think what we're talking about here are special privileges.
the legal rights of journalists,
17
posted on
06/28/2005 6:21:10 AM PDT
by
DManA
To: OESY
Forth-nine (sic) states and the District of Columbia either have laws on their books -- or case law precedents -- that shield journalists from revealing sources I doubt this is true. It's always been my general understanding that reporters do not have, and never have had, such a privilege. Nor should they.
To: OESY
Well, I would like to comment, extensively, on the various aspects of freedom of the press and how this case is a great encroachment...
But, all I can really come up with is...
" BBAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAWWWWAAAAAAA!
19
posted on
06/28/2005 6:27:41 AM PDT
by
mattdono
("Crush the democrats, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of the scumbags" -Big Arnie)
To: finnman69
I can't stand the use of anonymous sources in stories. As soon as I read a quote from a unnamed source, I question the credibility of it's contents.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson