Posted on 06/28/2005 5:39:25 AM PDT by OESY
In a major setback for proponents of the legal rights of journalists, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear the case of two reporters who have refused to cooperate with a grand-jury investigation....
Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times correspondent Judith Miller now face as much as 18 months in prison for civil contempt unless they comply with a lower-court order that they cooperate with a government investigation into the leak....
The Supreme Court's decision not to address the case has far-reaching implications for the rights of journalists in protecting unnamed sources from federal investigations. Reporters fear that their ability to interview sources that seek anonymity will be compromised because these sources will fear that the reporters could later be compelled to name them. The government's position has been that reporters shouldn't have special privileges allowing them to impede a criminal investigation.
Others had hoped that the court would take the case and perhaps clarify this murky area of federal law....
Forth-nine states and the District of Columbia either have laws on their books -- or case law precedents -- that shield journalists from revealing sources, and 34 states' attorneys general filed amicus briefs in support of the two journalists.
A U.S. district court judge and a Washington, D.C., circuit court of appeals, however, cited a 1972 Supreme Court case, Branzburg v. Hayes, which stressed that public interest in enforcing the law outweighed the right of reporters who have evidence of a crime to protect their sources. 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
:-)
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.
My faith has returned, not in the courts, but in God.
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.
I believe Rather would forge the Bible to have passages about GW in it.
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.
Lock em up, it will teach these 'editorialists' (I cant call them journalists)the downside of using anonymous sources.
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.
Couldn't happen to a better bunch.
Can anyone explain to me why it is that Novak wrote the article, but these two face jail time? What am I missing?
Maybe Novak is cooperating with investigators?
Now will see if the are willing to go to jail in order to protect Joe Wilson.
the legal rights of journalists,
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.
But, all I can really come up with is...
" BBAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAWWWWAAAAAAA!
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.