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."
Just wondering.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Another question is about the supposed 'only' methods of achieving the anonymity I above questioned.
From the article: "Only a clearly written federal shield law will give reporters and their anonymous sources the confidence they need to communicate outside of darkened parking garages."
Darkened parking garages? Please. How about just an office? Or a restaurant. Or, well, anywhere. If someone really wants to evesdrop on a reporter I can't imagine the reporter is going to be able to stop them by simply going to a parking garage. How about a public phone?
I am really just waiting for someone to tell me why I should believe anything a reporter says when their source is completely unknown due to total anonymity.
TLF
Re:Submitter's Blog (Score:4, Interesting)
All this "social aggregation" stuff with Slashdot and Digg and Fark and whatever else - it's a giant blogspam circle jerk. I am bored with it. Somebody invent Web 3.0 already.
Re:Judical activism (Score:5, Interesting)
The question you should be asking, is, why are regular people not accorded this protection? The answer has been (until recently) that you are unless those records are opened by a court subpoena, due to the fact that you are suspected of committing a crime.
The problem in this case is that the reporters aren't committing a crime. You see the difference? The government is forcing records out of regular citizens to use in witchhunts against whistleblowers and suspected lawbreakers. There is no part of that that is in any way cool.
Mind you, I think Judith Miller should be clubbed to death like a baby seal, but you can't stand up for freedoms only for people you like.
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe you should read the part about the powers of Judiciary. The Judiciary has no power to pass laws. (Judicial orders are another story, of course).
The problem with rulings like this is that they have a chilling effect on investigative reporting. If you're happy to have reporters cowering in fear of doing any real digging on a story, fine then. But the press is about the only true check we as citizens have on the power of government and if we defang them...well, if you think the Patriot Act is bad, as BTO would say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
Re:Why should the press have rights we don't have? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Submitter's Blog (Score:3, Interesting)
As it stands right now, I don't see any other option (apart from being less informed), and that irks me.
Re:Why should the press have rights we don't have? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the information they want was part of a investigative story you did, you'd have the same protections.
I am sick and tired of the Times and other blatantly anti war publications like them putting our soldiers and our security at risk.
Oh right. Its the journalists fault. Not the people that SENT the troops there to begin with, not the people shooting at the troops. Its the journalists.
If you work at an agency and you think there is something illegal going on the proper procedure is to call the US Attorney's office, not the New York Times.
There's a problem if the US attorney's office won't do anything about it though, especially if its corrupt government you're talking about. The correct answer IS going to the press. That's the only way to be sure the journalist isn't silenced in some way. I fail to see how telling anyone of an illegal activity is themselves a criminal. Maybe the people being called out SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ACTING ILLEGALLY TO BEGIN WITH.
Your logic defies belief. Its not the people breaking the law that's the problem.. is the people telling us about it??
Re:Misleading story (Score:3, Interesting)
No? None of those things are legal? But I thought freedom of speech and the press were absolute rights?
Already true (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have read or watched All the President's Men, you will remember the secrecy that went into their meetings. Even though that is largely exagerated, it is not that far off the mark.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:2, Interesting)
More true than you know, considering that 80% to 90% of reporters are Democrat [mediaresearch.org].
Hypocrisy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why should the press have rights we don't have? (Score:3, Interesting)
The phrase "blatantly anti war" makes it sound like there's something wrong with being anti-war, which pretty much says what side you're on, but anyway --
1. One of the reporters under investigation, Judith Miller, was not only a Times employee, but also one of the major cheerleaders during the build-up to the Iraq war. I know this doesn't fit into your little Fox bubble-world, but it's the truth, and easily verified.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever that out soldiers and our security were in any way put at risk by anything published in the Times, and not even the government is claiming that there is.
3. Anyone who opposes freedom of the press is un-American scum.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:3, Interesting)
As for congressmen, it actualy says they cannot be held for anything when congress is in session. the idea was so that people couln't make up violations to keep a congressman away from a vote they didn't favior. The idea that the press is able to protect and even encourage law breakers as part of some consitutional foundation is absurd. there are plenty of ways a person can reveal something without giving thier identity as well as without breaking a law. One can photocopy ducuments and accidently slip them into another envelope with press releases then drop it into a mailbox across town. One can also hit a payphone, give a wrong name then proceed to tell the information.
The problem here is that this didn't happen. Someone with an interest in tipping an organization associated with terrorism off about an impending action contacted a reporter who in turn informed the terrorist. This isn't news reporting in the least. It is a law enforcment agent working against the laws and government they were hired to protect and using the cloak of informant anonimity to enact thier plan. Now, we have people like you outraged that something might be done about this law enforcment agent or the reporters for tipping the terrorist off that they might be raided. This is worse then Bush listening to phone calls made to or from known terrorist while in the united states. On one hand we have a citizen contacting terrorist while on the other we have government agents contacting terrorist both trying to remain protected by laws or understood laws that were never enacted. It really surprises me when i see how many people stand up for shit like that. We have to protect double agents, spyes, terrorist at all cost!
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:2, Interesting)
However, the Constitution clearly does not confer rights on citizens. It protects the natural (inalienable) rights of persons.