Liberal media, falling under the spell of extreme leftist writers is nothing new.
I would love to see Arkin pulled before a Judge to name his source if this is indeed a National Security breech. Even it he doesn't name his source, its possible he could go to jail for contempt if it was a violation of law and he is covering the violator. Its a win-win deal as far as I can tell.
I would love to see Arkin pulled before a Judge to name his source if this is indeed a National Security breech. Even it he doesn't name his source, its possible he could go to jail for contempt if it was a violation of law and he is covering the violator. Its a win-win deal as far as I can tell.Journalism claims a right to protect sources. However, everybody and his brother can be a journalist; that's part of the direct meaning of "freedom of the press." That being so, being a journalist is--in the Constitution if not in case law--no big deal. I would love to see journalists' feet held to the fire to force disclosure of leaks.
If First Amendment protection would apply it would, ironically, have to the leaker and not to the leakee. That is, if I decide to place an ad in the paper the government can't prosecute the paper for printing the ad if I myself had a constitutional right to publish the information. But if I did not have that right--if the information was legally, legitimately classified--then the newspaper doesn't have a legitimate right to protect me from prosecution by concealing my identity.
The "protection of sources" racket was particularly galling when x42's minions were leaking information (which they legally had and which they could legally divulge) yet the administration was allowed by journalists to slander Ken Starr (who legally had the information but was legalally forbidden to divulge it) as being illicitly the source of the information.