Ruling to Make Reporters Act Like Drug Dealers? 376
netbuzz writes "A 2-1 New York appeals court ruling yesterday will require two reporters to cough up their telephone records over a property-seizure case unless it gets reversed on appeal. As the dissenting judge noted, this kind of erosion of press protections will have reporters 'contacting sources the way I understand drug dealers do to reach theirs -- by use of clandestine cell phones and meeting in darkened doorways.' It's long past time for a federal shield law."
Source article (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02ph
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com [bugmenot.com]
Curiously... (Score:3, Informative)
Then upon reading the story -- it's the same reporter!?! At least it doesn't look like she's headed back to jail this time.
Re:Curiously... (Score:5, Informative)
Judith Miller -- the journalist involved in both these issues -- wasn't involved in any sort of attempt to damage the Bush administration with the Plame scandal. In fact, Bush insiders intentionally leaked the story to Miller and others as part of the Iraq WMD propaganda. Judith Miller's stories had swallowed the administration's line on WMD so leaking to her was a natural choice (along with other conservative reporters like Bob Novak).
Thus, the leak issue came up not because the media was obsessed with damaging the Bush administration, but because the government's prosecutor was determined to get to the bottom of the case (for whatever reason). Since it was pro-Bush journalists who had received the Plame leak, it was pro-Bush journalists who were being asked to reveal sources.
The more recent instances of anti-leak sentiment are more traditional cases of the "liberal media" publishing information that the Bush administration wanted to keep secret. This is the exact opposite of the Plame scandal, where the information was leaked on purpose.
Misleading story (Score:5, Informative)
The FBI was going to raid some places they thought were linked to terrorist financing. The reporters found out. The reporters called the organizations for comment, in advance of the raids.
Hi, this is Judith Miller of the New York Times. Your organization is going to be raided by the Feds tomorrow to look for evidence in connection with a terrorist financing investigation. Do you have any comment on that?
I think the judges' ruling is correct. Reporters can't be allowed the privilege of anonymous sources when they take these sorts of actions.
Re:Sort your Country out...... (Score:1, Informative)
The elections were not 'stolen' no matter how much you re-read the numbers. You lost suck it up just like I did when Clinton won. It was close.
The two parties are fairly close (they have to be as they are majority parties). The real differences happen in the smaller parties that no one looks at.
It is easy to sit here now and say 'oh they would not have done that they said they would not have'. I call bull. They are just saying it now to look good. Just like all good politicos do. They are mearly petting their own egos. They are not looking for real change they are just looking to be in charge.
Re:Source article (Score:4, Informative)
The case involved stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon that revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.
Prosecutors claimed the reporters' phone calls to the charities seeking comment had tipped the organizations off about the government investigation.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked the Times for information about the source of the reports in 2002, then threatened to subpoena phone company billing records in 2004.
The newspaper sued to block any such effort, saying prosecutors might use the records to fish for information about the Times' sources for a long list of stories.
There is of course a line in the sand with the press in which the 1st amendment reaches the yelling fire in a theatre threshold. I think the question here is this equivalent to the NY Times tipping off the Germans prior to Normandy? Or is this something they should be able to do, in this case tipping off possible sources of terrorist funding right after 9-11 no less. The government is rightly seeking to find the sources of the original leaks to the reporters rather than looking to prosecute the reporters themselves. The reporters, in my view were irresposible but because freedom of the press is a sacred cow (rightfully so in most cases) they are pretty untouchable. However, the source of the leak should rightfully be given up when it comes to a matter of national security. Once that source is discovered they should be prosecuted.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:1, Informative)
Simply another 100% incorrect, disengenuous, bullshit post moderated +5 by the depressingly thick Slashdot crowd too lazy to expend seconds Googling a topic. If it feels good it must be right, right? Play reporter for a day and investigate reality. You might find the change refreshing and your republic will be the better for it... hey, is Futurama on !!?!?
Re:Woah, cool! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure i understand your point. You see, if they part of a small crime exposing a larger crime, they will still go down when the larger crime gets investigated. Why would a reporter refusing to tell stop this? But it is more likley, the person involved with the smaller crime will seek protection from prosecution by ratting out the larger crime. Either way, people ither then reporters have been getting this same situation to happen for years. I'm not sure why reporters should have some special consideration in this reguard. But, there is a difference in sam calling up a reporter and saying senator bill is taking bribes from "king i'mgonnakillamericans" and the reporter actualy witnessing or taking part in a crime. This is whats happening here. The reporters took part in a crime for a story wich they could sell and they are claiming you cannot touch us because of freedom of the press.
In the mid 70's the US supream court said that reporters could be called to testify or required to turn over information on crimes they witnessed. Thats why the apeals court upheld this ruling and it is why the supream court will too. Remember, this case is about some agent of the government illagaly leaking information about an investigation to a reporter and then the reporters informing the subjects of the investigation about impending actions. If they didn't actualy take part in the commision of a crime, they at least directly witnessed one.
and usualy those aren't real wistleblowers. they are disgruntled employees who don't know the whole story. we recently had a story here on slashdot about this. It pointed out exactly whats protected and whats not.
No, your wrong. investigation and watching for corupt activities will bring this stuff out. Deep throat remaining anonymouse lead the country to jump to the wrong conclusions. Two of the three defendants in the watergate case claim they were looking for evidence of a prostitution scandle while one who is a member of the DNC claims it was about the election. Nixon always protested he was inocent evne after being pardened for any actions related to it. Watergate could verry well be a 60's version of florida 2000. But it is hard to tell. there are more things unanswered about watergate and deepthroat then we actualy have direct conclusion about. We just asume the worse because it fits the image the best. the only proof we have of it going down the way histroy says is one porsons testimoney who may have taken one for the team.