Posted on 09/21/2008 1:01:29 PM PDT by Justice Department
Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy urged the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington on Thursday not to throw out her case seeking a reporter’s privilege to keep her sources confidential.
Locy became embroiled in the legal battle after reporting about Steven Hatfill, the former Army scientist who was investigated in the 2001 anthrax attacks but whose name has since been cleared. When Locy refused to give up her confidential sources in Hatfill's ensuing Privacy Act suit against the government, the U.S. District Court in D.C. held her in contempt. She appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals.
(Excerpt) Read more at rcfp.org ...
Hatfill told the court in his filing last week that once the case was dismissed he would seek attorney's fees from Locy. That Hatfill will continue to pursue Locy in litigation over fees is one reason Locy’s case is still alive and should be decided, her attorneys argued.
Ping
Ping.
“Judge Walton’s contempt order would’ve wrecked my retirement.” Locy said. “But Hatfill’s legal bills would destroy me.”
Gee, guess she didn’t care about it ruining him.
Tough ta ta's baby. You should have thought about that before you destroyed an innocent man. Time to pay up.
Locy
“I managed to afflict the afflicted.”
“I owe an apology to Dr. Hatfill,” says Kristof (reporter)
New York Times
“The news media is supposed to be to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted,” writes Nick Kristof. “Instead, I managed to afflict the afflicted.” Steven Hatfill’s suit against the columnist and his paper was dismissed, “yet even if I don’t have a legal obligation, I do feel a moral one to express regret for any added distress from my columns.”
Nick Kristof
Have grown quite sick of ‘reporter’s privilege.’ If a reporter has checked and double checked his source, he should be able to stand behind that. But, reporters who must always shield their sources, are reporters who are highly suspect, especially in an age when lying has become endemic. Why should any citizen be hurt by anonymous statements broadcast in the greater media? While some reporters are conscientious, well educated journalists, most are not. Why should such a special privilege be given to people who may not even have been able to complete college, taken any courses in ethics or learned anything about civic responsibility? When society gives a doctor or a priest or a lawyer certain ‘privileges,’ it does so knowing that certain minimum standards have been met. That is clearly not the case with alleged journalists.
Damn....I don’t know if I should feel afflicted or go out and afflict. :)
So have I. To me, the very idea is fundamentally unAmerican.
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.