Posted on 10/20/2005 11:50:26 AM PDT by Crackingham
Mindful of the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, reporters are increasingly wary of pursuing stories based on confidential sources and need the protection of a federal "shield" law, a panel of journalists told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. U.S. Justice Department officials told senators, however, that they strongly oppose such a shield law, saying it is unnecessary and harmful to national security because it could prevent prosecutors from obtaining potentially vital information.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., indicated yesterday that he doesn't accept the Justice Department argument and plans to try to win his panel's approval for a shield law later this fall. "Here you have a reporter [Ms. Miller] in jail for 85 days and millions of Americans wonder why. I'm one of those," Mr. Specter said.
Ms. Miller's case has resulted in "an obvious chilling effect on other reporters. I believe we need a statute," Mr. Specter added. Instead of relying on federal officials to decide when to try to force reporters to reveal confidential information, a federal law would leave the decision up to a judge, he said.
Currently, there is no federal shield law for reporters, although the District of Columbia and every state except Wyoming have established some type of state shield law for journalists.
Efforts to create a federal shield law have languished for years. But the issue has recently been brought into sharper public focus by Ms. Miller's case. She was released from jail Sept. 29 after receiving permission from her source, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to reveal his name to federal prosecutors investigating the public disclosure of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. It is a federal crime for an official knowingly to identify an undercover intelligence agent.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Just say NO to protections for lying presstitutes!
I'm a "journalist," I suppose. Would I be protected by this Shield Law?
It's a simple answer, Senator Idiot. She refused to comply with a subpoena that every other American would be required to comply with.
NO, NO, NO! This give the media a blank check to use "unnamed sources" for everything they do and every LIE THEY WISH TO PERPETRATE AGAINST CONSERVATIVES.
Everybody needs to email their congress people and scream bloody murder about this. The media already has this protection in lower courts - but we must not allow them to use it in federal courts where national security issues are at stake.
Send an email to Tony Snow and see if Tony will start a campaign against it. He's done a lot for other awful legislation - this should be right up his alley.
The best thing is to make sure your anonymous source is really anonymous. Then you can go before a jury and tell everything you know without threatening your source.
This would apply to both 'journalists' and 'non-journalists'.
NO WAY! "Journalists" have a duty to back up their reporting with the truth. The "trust" for journalists went out the window with Dan Rather. A sheild law would be a liscence to lie with absolutely no consequences.
SPECTRE is such a moron. If the Wilson-Plame-Miller case shows anything it's that journalists have all sorts of conflicting, dubious, and sometimes nefarious motives, and should no more be above the law than any of the rest of us. In fact, every reporter involved in the Plame affair should be required to testify in public, under oath, on all sources and details. The "public's right to know" should include knowing which charlatans in and out of government have been working in tandem with Joe Wilson, Larry Johnson, et al to feed this story and deceive the public.
Of course not. You don't have a broadcasting license, and you don't own a printing press. Most of all, you don't belong to the "objective journalist" guild. You don't protect other "objective journalists," and they don't protect you.I don't own a printing press either. Yet.
But as long as the Constitution protects your right to buy a printing press in the future, you are in principle a journalist right now. Just not in the eyes of Arlen Spector and the rest of the arrogant journalist-political complex.
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.