Journal pudge's Journal: So Much To Say about SCOTUS 1
Lots of people saying lots of things today, but the one thing I want to note is that I am so glad they refused to intervene in the case of Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller.
CNN's legal reporter calls it "terrible news." I love it. It means that journalists have no special federal rights.
Some journalists are trying to say it is good news, because it could have been worse: after all, the Court could have affirmed that they do not have special rights! But that is already the status quo. By not taking the case, they did affirm that.
And some people have even said, well, this is good, because (sorta like the medical marijuana case), it might force the Congress to take the issue up. While that might happen with medical marijuana (though I wouldn't hold my breath [ha ha]), there's no chance it will happen with special rights for the press. And good, because they deserve no special rights.
I am not necessarily in favor of the use of force (jail time) to get someone to reveal a source, but I am entirely against not using that force just because that someone is a journalist.
Founding fathers (Score:2)
But aren't special protections for journalists one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy and freedoms envisioned by the founding fathers in white hoods, like a melting pot public schooling for everybody? How can a free society function without ensuring that its journalists have the right to report the news?