Reporter convicted (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041118/ap_on_re_us/mum_reporter)

Reporter was convicted for not turning over his source....

And the Justice Dept has more reporters charged for other situations.

No more freedom of the press...Journalists investigating the government will now be forced to reveal sources, which means there will cease to be sources.

Most people think the constitution is a communist document anyway. They'll never notice or object.

Not sure if it is as black and white as that.

The court (Judge Torres) ruled that "Whoever provided Taricani the videotape may have violated a protective order that was in place at the time. Torres has said that Taricani's right to protect his confidential source does not supercede the court's right to know who violated the order."

This is not just some anonymous guy who shot a homemade tape and then gave it to a reporter on the promise of anonymity. The actual act of giving the tape to the reporter was a crime, or in violation of the order. Airing the tape was not the problem.

Of course, the person who had the tape should have just mailed it anonymously, if he was going to insist on violating the order. But too late for that now, I guess.

I just read the first paragraph, but isn't it against the law for that tape to get released in the first place? So if that's the case, it's against the law to not say who gave it to you. He's uses back doors and the person that gave him that tape is looking at the same sentence.

The reporter should have never accepted the tape and the one that gave him that tape should have never accepted the reporter's bribe (only way he would have gotten it. You REALLY think somebody would risk their job with the FBI giving him the tape freely?)

Not sure if it is as black and white as that.

The court (Judge Torres) ruled that "Whoever provided Taricani the videotape may have violated a protective order that was in place at the time. Torres has said that Taricani's right to protect his confidential source does not supercede the court's right to know who violated the order."

This is not just some anonymous guy who shot a homemade tape and then gave it to a reporter on the promise of anonymity. The actual act of giving the tape to the reporter was a crime, or in violation of the order. Airing the tape was not the problem.

Of course, the person who had the tape should have just mailed it anonymously, if he was going to insist on violating the order. But too late for that now, I guess.


The point is, henceforth the Government simply will get a court order for anything they do.

The journalists right to protect his source should always supercede any right of the Government. The freedom of the press is arguably the single most important right the people in this nation have...to impinge upon it is opening the door to catastrophe.

The journalists right to protect his source should always supercede any right of the Government. The freedom of the press is arguably the single most important right the people in this nation have...to impinge upon it is opening the door to catastrophe.
That assumes that the journalists are doing what they are supposed to do which is to give an unbiased reporting of the facts and let us draw our own conclusions. Not too much of that lately.

I'm not completely familier with this case but after the whole CBS fake document thing I'm not sure how much I trust either side.

There's nothing new here - journalists have long been jailed for refusing to reveal sources. It's part of a longstanding tension between the press and the law. It hasn't brought down the republic yet, and its not going to now.

I do think there's a line that journalists should not be allowed to cross. Even if a journalist has access via whatever means to, say, plans for an offensive to capture Bin Laden, should that journalist put it out in the public media so Bin Laden knows he needs to find a better hidey hole? There was a HUGE problem with this in the first Gulf War, all the Iraqi troops needed to do was watch CNN.

I would say the journalist in this case is being made the patsy for the FBIs own lack of internal security. FBI doesn't want to take the heat for having an internal informant, so shift public attention over to the journalist, rather than to where the problem really lies. If the FBI can't figure out who the moles are in their own organization, that's gonna be some pretty bad press for them. If they can scare the reporter into saying who the mole is, then they don't have to worry about catching their own internal leak.

I've never heard of a journalist ever being tried and convicted for refusing to reveal a source.

Please give me an example previous to this one.

Tabloids are forced to reveal sources all the time to justify the stories they make up.

I've never heard of a journalist ever being tried and convicted for refusing to reveal a source.

Please give me an example previous to this one.

Here's one easy list:

http://www.rcfp.org/jail.html

Reading that list, all but the last were jailed for relatively short periods of time until they were released pending an appeal, or on appeal, or after federal intervention.

We're talking a matter of days-week. They also seemed to be local cases.

Not until the last on that list, in 2001 (current administration), do you see someone held for a great length of time by a federal court, and even with that one, it wasn't a person investigating the government.

This latest, in conjunction with the other civil liberties this administration has decided no longer pay heed to, is frightening. The door is officially open for the government to take a citizen away, to a secret court, and then get a court order sealing the entire affair...and criminizalize any reporter who attempts to expose the government.

This doesn't frighten people?

This doesn't frighten people?
I find it very disturbing. The fear of terrorism has created an environment where people are willing to compromise their civil liberties if they're told it will protect them. The more afraid they are the less likely they are to think critically and the easier they are to manipulate.

Sorry, this is a "cry wolf" situation in my eyes. Journalists trying to claim "freedom of the press" on protecting sources is nebulous at best. If someone video tapes himself killing a person while masked, and then hands that tape to a reporter under the clause that he will protect his source, damn skippy the reporter should get charged with contempt and possibly harboring if he refuses to tell the court how he got his evidence.

USAToday actually has a bit more information about the case, including former court cases on the subject - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-02-media-sources_x.htm

Many "privileged communications" (e.g. attorney/client; psychiatrist/patient) have exceptions that relate to communications that are in furtherance of a criminal activity or anticipated criminal activity. Generally a balancing test is applied weighing the various benefits to society. Avoiding and limiting criminal activity is often seen as a greater benefit to society overall.

I'm not familiar with the facts of this case, but in reading this thread, it appears that the "passing of the tape" to another was a criminal act. Just because the recipient happened to be a reporter, why should he be protected by calling it a privileged communication, when no one else who might have received the tape would be protected from revealing the source? If the reporter participated in a criminal activity in receiving the tape, then the journalist/source privilege probably should not apply.

Absolutes can be just as dangerous as placing limits on the journalists' privilege. I think an examination of the facts and circumstances of the particular case merits review, and not a cry about the downfall of society due to this one case.

Many "privileged communications" (e.g. attorney/client; psychiatrist/patient) have exceptions that relate to communications that are in furtherance of a criminal activity or anticipated criminal activity. Generally a balancing test is applied weighing the various benefits to society. Avoiding and limiting criminal activity is often seen as a greater benefit to society overall.

I'm not familiar with the facts of this case, but in reading this thread, it appears that the "passing of the tape" to another was a criminal act. Just because the recipient happened to be a reporter, why should he be protected by calling it a privileged communication, when no one else who might have received the tape would be protected from revealing the source? If the reporter participated in a criminal activity in receiving the tape, then the journalist/source privilege probably should not apply.

Because it opens the door for our government making it an illegal act to provide information for a whole broad gamut, effectively choking the freedom of the press to disseminate information about our government's doings to the People.

Absolutes can be just as dangerous as placing limits on the journalists' privilege. I think an examination of the facts and circumstances of the particular case merits review, and not a cry about the downfall of society due to this one case.

Once you permit the ideal to be impinged in one instance, because the facts seem such that its "okay", the door is opened and over time the standard for what is protected gets reduced further and further. Because the American people have a disturbing history of letting our Government start down slippery slopes and then being unable to stop them.


A hypothetical example...In 2006, a new law and new Supreme Court appointees combine to outlaw abortion on a federal level. Reporter X does a story in 2007 on blackmarket abortions, interviewing numerous people involved. Afterwards the Justice Dept comes down on the Reporter in an attempt to locate all the little heathen dens of baby murder the reporter has knowledge of and after the reporter refuses to break confidentiality, the Justice Dept has the AG file charges against the reporter for obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact on Y counts of Murdering an Unborn Christian. Said reporter is swept off to the secret court (Because Abortion is terrorism, don't you know).

Reporter Z then does some investigative reporting on the what happened to Reporter X, and in doing so breaks a court order sealing the proceedings surrounding Reporter X. Reporter Z is then charged with contempt of court, and further, charged with providing material aid to a terrorist, and swept off to the secret court.

But, hey, It Can't Happen Here. American citizens would never be taken off to secret courts...and the government would never endanger the Freedom of the Press by bringing criminal charges against reporters who report on the government's doings...

There's a big difference between being a participant in a criminal activity and reporting on it. Just as an attorney can hear about the criminal activities of their client and not be forced to reveal it. Attorney/client privilege has not been lessened by the exception of participating in criminal activities. Nor has the psychotherapist privilege when a therapist hears of a potential crime.

It's a reasonably carved out exception to the privileges that has not led to the proverbial slippery slope. I don't see why journalists shouldn't be held to the same standard. If they are part of a criminal activity, then their sources shouldn't be privileged. If they are simply reporting and not enabling criminal activity, then their source privilege can stand.

When the "criminal" activity is, by its very nature, the dissemination of information...

The reporter in this instance was doing his job. Reporting on a story. This reporter wasn't helping the mayor recieve bribes. He was reporting on how the FBI was not only investigating the guy...but that the guy was caught red handed accepting bribes.

The criminal activity is accepting the tape illegally, either through bribery or willing being given up by the FBI agent.

As it was stated earlier in the thread, if this was some joe-smoe by-passer video, he wouldn't be going to jail. The fact is this was a Top Secret, FBI owned video that was Not to be leaked to the press. It was leaked, and now they want to know who leaked it. Reporter knows and admitted to knowing, so now the fait rests on his shoulders.

The freedom of speach doesn't even fall into play here. He's now an accomplis to the illegal distribution of the tape.

Look at it this way;
FBI agent leaks it to a "friend". This "friend" leaks it to the Press. THe Press airs and it the government comes down on the reporter. The reporter releases the "friends" name. The friend is sent to jail unless he gives the judge the name of the guy that game him the tape, the reporter is let go.


If you believe this is a freedom of speach issue, the you're being intentionally blinded by the press of the real subject of this matter. Don't be manipulated by what the press is saying to protect one of their own, understand the true crimal act to understand what's really going on.

And if you think the press doesn't manipulate their viewers, then you're already lost!

:assimilat

The fact is this was a Top Secret, FBI owned video that was Not to be leaked to the press.

What if the FBI had a court order against publication of this evidence but had done a deal with the criminals, or had been complicit with the criminals, and was not going to press charges against the criminals? We would have had a situation where the public were denied their rights to know the actions of the FBI even though the FBI had been acting outside the trust given to them by the public. I think this is the situation Aidon is worried about.

If this is the same case I heard last night, it was a tape of a Rhode Island offical accepting a bribe. From what I understand, the man has already been tried and convicted. Why would it still be classified as top secret? In fact why would it be classified at all? I thought the issue was that the court had a gag order on evidence from the trial or soemthing to that effect.

Seems kind of funny that someone from Bushes cabinent can leak about a diplomat's wife being a spy and no one gets in trouble for that, but someone does their job revealing corruption in the government and they go to jail.

This is the first I've heard anyone suggest the tape was classified, and I don't believe it was. There was a gag order in place, and hence the inquiry.

Right now, no one from Bush's cabinet (or anyplace else) can go to jail on the Valerie Plame incident, because the person responsible for the leak isn't known. The person responsible for the leak isn't known because the reporters aren't revealing their sources. Personally, I think Robert Novak and his source (whoever that may be) should be sitting in a jail cell right now, and, since the court cases are still in progress, it may come to that yet.

The criminal activity is accepting the tape illegally, either through bribery or willing being given up by the FBI agent.

As it was stated earlier in the thread, if this was some joe-smoe by-passer video, he wouldn't be going to jail. The fact is this was a Top Secret, FBI owned video that was Not to be leaked to the press. It was leaked, and now they want to know who leaked it. Reporter knows and admitted to knowing, so now the fait rests on his shoulders.

The freedom of speach doesn't even fall into play here. He's now an accomplis to the illegal distribution of the tape.

Look at it this way;
FBI agent leaks it to a "friend". This "friend" leaks it to the Press. THe Press airs and it the government comes down on the reporter. The reporter releases the "friends" name. The friend is sent to jail unless he gives the judge the name of the guy that game him the tape, the reporter is let go.


If you believe this is a freedom of speach issue, the you're being intentionally blinded by the press of the real subject of this matter. Don't be manipulated by what the press is saying to protect one of their own, understand the true crimal act to understand what's really going on.

And if you think the press doesn't manipulate their viewers, then you're already lost!

:assimilat

This is a freedom of the press issue. If you don't believe it is, you're being intentionally blinded by the Government on the real subject of this matter. ;)

The fact that there was a court order sealing the proceedings doesn't change the matter. The press has a right to try and find out and report on such information. It is what makes this a putatively free nation.

If the court wishes to instigate an investigation into the matter, that is their perogative, but to coerce reporters into revealing confidential sources is antithetical to the freedoms our society is supposed to have.

The fact that there was a court order sealing the proceedings doesn't change the matter. The press has a right to try and find out and report on such information. It is what makes this a putatively free nation.

As long as the press does not participate in illegal activity. You seem to think that reporters should have the right to do anything, no matter how illegal, to get their story. I'd rather our press have to follow our laws, just like everyone else has to. I don't think our press should be leaking items of national security or compromising criminal investigations just because it might be a story. They have to follow and respect court orders just like everyone else. No one should be above the law.

Under Aidon's rule, a reporter from the National Enquirer would be free to break and enter into your home, look for anything that might make a story, and report it without recourse. They could even beat you up until you confessed to something. :p

If a reporter learns of some sinister plot within the FBI, but there is a gag order in place, then they can seek a seperate court order lifting the gag order allowing them to write about it. They would be able to present their case to an independent judge while the 'other side' also has the opportunity to present their case why it shouldn't be reported. In other words, there are legal means that the reporter in this case could have and should have used. No matter how good a reporter is, he might just not know *all* the facts and reasons why something is court ordered confidential. And quite frankly, I don't want the discretion of a reporter from the National Enquirer to supersede that of our judiciary and Congress.

As long as the press does not participate in illegal activity. You seem to think that reporters should have the right to do anything, no matter how illegal, to get their story. I'd rather our press have to follow our laws, just like everyone else has to. I don't think our press should be leaking items of national security or compromising criminal investigations just because it might be a story. They have to follow and respect court orders just like everyone else. No one should be above the law.

The press should be able to investigate criminial investigations. Without the government attempting to criminalize the reporting thereof. You just keep saying they can't participate in illegal activity without addressing the fact that the criminal activity in the case at point was the very reporting. By your arguement, all you need to do to emasculate the press is make it illegal for them to report.

And regarding national security. Well, all I have to say is if its a matter of national security and the press is able to get information on it...we have bigger problems than that. Because if the LA times can get the info, you can be sure foreign agents already have it and are snickering at us.


Under Aidon's rule, a reporter from the National Enquirer would be free to break and enter into your home, look for anything that might make a story, and report it without recourse. They could even beat you up until you confessed to something. :p

Um...no. You are deliberately misunderstating my point.

If a reporter learns of some sinister plot within the FBI, but there is a gag order in place, then they can seek a seperate court order lifting the gag order allowing them to write about it.

No, because by doing that you mandate that the People require the permission of the Government in order to excercise their First Amendment Rights, at which point it no longer becomes a right but a privledge.

They would be able to present their case to an independent judge while the 'other side' also has the opportunity to present their case why it shouldn't be reported. In other words, there are legal means that the reporter in this case could have and should have used.

Setting up a system in which the Government can delay and postpone the reporting of news through a series of legal hearings. The press does not answer to our government. Our government must answer to the press, as the eyes and ears of the People on the Government.

No matter how good a reporter is, he might just not know *all* the facts and reasons why something is court ordered confidential. And quite frankly, I don't want the discretion of a reporter from the National Enquirer to supersede that of our judiciary and Congress.

When you limit the discretion of the "hack" from the Naitonal Enquirer, you also limit the discretion of the "respected" journalist. And the reporter doesn't need to know the facts or reasons why something is ordered confidential. It is the responsibility of the Government to show good cause as to why the People shouldn't have knowledge of its workings, not for the People to show good cause of why it should have knowledge.

You just keep saying they can't participate in illegal activity without addressing the fact that the criminal activity in the case at point was the very reporting.

That is NOT what is being said. The "reporting" was NOT the criminal activity. The passing/receiving of the tape was in violation of the court order. You can't simply excuse the illegal action because one of the participants was a journalist.

As in any of our 'freedoms', Freedom of the Press is not absolute. Look at the 'yelling fire in a crowed movie theater' example. This whole "opening the door/slippery slope" argument is ridiculous.

Our government must answer to the press, as the eyes and ears of the People on the Government.

Are you kidding me? The government must answer to the People, period. I voted for representatives/senators/president. I did NOT vote for Harry Q. Newshack, and I do not want him speaking for me.

That is NOT what is being said. The "reporting" was NOT the criminal activity. The passing/receiving of the tape was in violation of the court order. You can't simply excuse the illegal action because one of the participants was a journalist.

The illegality was on the person who released the tape to the press. Not in the reporter recieving it. If the courts wish to do their own investigation as to who it was who did the leak, they are free to do so, but not by coercing that identification from the reporter. To do so effectively blocks reporters from reporting on the goings on of our government. There can be no whistleblowers if they can no longer be assured of their anonymity by the Courts.

As in any of our 'freedoms', Freedom of the Press is not absolute. Look at the 'yelling fire in a crowed movie theater' example. This whole "opening the door/slippery slope" argument is ridiculous.

No, it isn't absolute. As in the fire in the crowed theater example, a reporter with knowledge of an immanent danger is required to report it to the authorities. A reporter who reports something reasonably certain to incite panic and chaos, which isn't true, is also unprotected. However, to analogize the forced breech of confidentiality in order to determine who broke a court order, is near sighted and the sort of view which permits our Government to continue its slow erosion of our rights and protections from abuse.

Are you kidding me? The government must answer to the People, period. I voted for representatives/senators/president. I did NOT vote for Harry Q. Newshack, and I do not want him speaking for me.

Harry Q. Newshack is also the People. And any Government which does not answer to the Press, is a Government of totalitarianism. The open Government does not fear the press. Ours, evidently, does.

Since our inception as a nation, the Press has played an import role in providing the public with knowledge of what its Government is doing.

I want to know when the President hires people to break into buildings illegally. I want to know when the President trades arms for hostages. I want to know when the President has shady dealings concerning Chinese nationals and our nuclear arsenal. I want to know when a Tough on Drugs Governor's daughter is an addict who gets to skirt the system because she's the Gov's daughter.

I want to know when the mayor of my city is caught on tape accepting bribes.

That's what reporters do, and they are important. The average American doesn't have the time or resources to investigate these things. You go to a dentist to get your teeth fixed. You go to a mechanic to get your car fixed. You go to an attorney to get your ex-wife fixed. You go to the news to find out if you need to fix your government.

Or perhaps you'd rather our system was like in Russia, where those who with the funds and abilities to report negatively against Putin are arrested...

I'm with Aidon on this one.

/agree Aidon.

After all, we wouldn't want investigative journalists running around telling us what was going on, after all, we might end up with something like this:

In his book, The Era of the Muckrakers (1933), C. C. Regier argued that it is possible to tabulate the achievements of investigative journalism during this period: "The list of reforms accomplished between 1900 and 1915 is an impressive one. The convict and peonage systems were destroyed in some states; prison reforms were undertaken; a federal pure food act was passed in 1906; child labour laws were adopted by many states; a federal employers' liability act was passed in 1906, and a second one in 1908, which was amended in 1910; forest reserves were set aside; the Newlands Act of 1902 made reclamation of millions of acres of land possible; a policy of the conservation of natural resources was followed; eight-hour laws for women were passed in some states; race-track gambling was prohibited; twenty states passed mothers' pension acts between 1908 and 1913; twenty-five states had workmen's compensation laws in 1915; an income tax amendment was added to the Constitution; the Standard Oil and the Tobacco companies were dissolved; Niagara Falls was saved from the greed of corporations; Alaska was saved from the Guggenheims and other capitalists; and better insurance laws and packing-house laws were placed on the statute books."


source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jmuckraking.htm (it's an educational history site, this particular quote is taken from the era of Muckraking, which was the beginnings of modern investigative reporting)

The illegality was on the person who released the tape to the press. Not in the reporter recieving it.
Depends on how he got it. From interpritation of the news artical, the reporter iniciated the trade some how (through bribary I think somebody else posted). This would make the illegal act the reporter's. Of course, it was also illegal for his source to accept said alledged bribe and release the tape.

Then get Congress to establish, once and for all, an absolute reporter's privilege. There isn't one now. The Supreme Court has not ruled that the First Amendment provides one. Instead, it left it to the States to decide, and most of them have enacted various forms of Shield laws. However, even most of those State enacted Shield Laws have limits. They provide for a balancing test, weighing the publics' right to know and the value of anonymous sources vs. the other side's right to privacy, truth, right to confront their accuser, and protection. Equally valued Constitutional rights.

Anonymous sources should be rarely used. They prevent us from fairly evaluating the source of information (e.g. if the source has an agenda and is using the reporter for that purpose like the fake Bush military records). They prevent us our right to confront the "accuser" because the "accuser" is anonymous (see e.g. the Lee case where it was leaked that he was a spy for China, which accusations ultimately proved false, but his life and reputation were ruined and he can't sue due to the anonymous source). They lead to false stories (e.g. the reporter who made up stories using fake anonymous sources). Anonymous sources can and have been abused. They can lead to lazy and biased journalism. And protection of them in some cases prevents the protection of other Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The tape in this case could have been under the gag order to protect the identity of a deep undercover agent whose life might have been put in peril and job in jeopardy should his identity be prematurely revealed. There were other ways to report that the Mayor was accepting bribes without airing the tape. At the very least, the reporter knowing of the gag order, should have requested a hearing to lift the gag order, not take it upon himself to violate the law. But he took that upon himself, and now is facing the consequences. I don't have a problem with that.

The bottom line is, there is not and never has been an enunciated constitutionally based absolute privilege for reporters and their sources. Instead, the privilege, such as it is, has been one created due to practical circumstances and legislated by many, but not all, States. And those Shield Laws are not absolute as is being advocated here. And despite the lack of one, our reporters continue to investigate and bring us the stories that you listed, Aidon. Our Government is remarkably free of corruption, in great part due to reporters investigative efforts. During the last Century, despite there not being a clear cut reporter's privilege, our Country has not sunk into the totalitarian depths that you are predicting for us now. Nor, do I think this case will lead us there.

No where in my comments have I suggested that there should not be some privilege for journalists. However, I do think their privilege should be balanced with other competing rights of individuals, not absolute. And I don't think reporters have the right to snub their noses at our legal process, putting their independent judgment over that of our Courts. If there is a Court order in place, they need to respect that just like every other citizen.

Eventually, the Supreme Court will accept one of these reporter privilege cases for review again, or Congress will enact some Legislation, if for no other reason, to reconcile the disparity among the various State Shield Laws. And, I believe that they will ultimately enunciate a balancing test, not an absolute privilege that would allow reporters to avoid the legal consequences of their actions.

Anonymous sources should be rarely used.

In the UK we have had a number of whistleblowers who have had found themselves in serious problems recently, despite the government supposedly having a policy of supporting these people.

David Kelly was a weapons inspector and (dis)armament expert who was anonymously quoted in a BBC report. The BBC tried to protect his identity but the government eventually leaked it to the rest of the press and David Kelly comitted suicide. This was a major political incident.

A civil servant in my area wrote to his boss, his boss's boss, and all the way up the tree to government ministers complaining about malpractice checking immigration claims. When nothing happened he leaked the story to the press and was sacked. The malpractice was at first denied then admitted and stopped. The government minister resigned. The whistleblower is still appealing against his dismissal.

A diplomat reported that an immigration office routinely allowed bogus immigration forms from Bulgarians despite repeated warnings from our embassy there. A one legged man who claimed to work as a roofer was one example. The diplomat was predictably sacked.

An intelligence woman who leaked a story that the UK and US were bugging Kofi Annan's office was dismissed. She claimed it was in the public interest and I must admit I think she's right. I cannot see why our government should treat him as an enemy of my country.

I support the actions of the whistleblowers in all these cases and I'm very disappointed that my government has reflexively chosen to sack them all. These people should not have to pay for their acts of conscience. Anonymous sources should be allowed provided their authenticity can be verified.

You just received a long awaited, well earned promotion due to your work on a sensitive merger project with the company. A fellow executive, disgruntled because he did not get the promotion, tells a reporter that you got the promotion because you were blackmailing the boss, and despite that you were having an affair with your assistant. He tells the reporter that if his name is revealed, he'll lose his job and reputation never able to get another job in the area (because he's a whistleblower), and the reporter promises him anonymity. Reporter needing a good story before his deadline, thinks this is a great story, writes it up using "a top level executive of the company revealed" description.

Story goes to print. The merger falls apart and the company stock value drops. You are fired because the company can't afford the drama associated with you now, even if the story isn't true. Anonymous source now gets your promotion. You can't find equivalent work in the area because of your now besmirched reputation.

A couple weeks later, the newspaper prints a retraction in a small box on page 32 saving them from a libel suit. You are still out of work and your wife has doubts about your fidelity. What do you want to do?

A couple weeks later, the newspaper prints a retraction in a small box on page 32 saving them from a libel suit.


Why do you think that saves them from a libel suit?

heh not really my point, Scirocco, nor am I really inclined to research the law of how the media does avoid libel suits with their retractions. However, I think that if the fired executive was considered a "public figure" (e.g. Michael Esiner) the retraction would eliminate the finding of "malice", a requisite element for libel. Either way, both the company and fired executive have good reason for wanting to know who the anonymous source is who leaked the lie, and the public was prevented from evaluating the source of the story and his agenda or bias.

There are two sides to this issue, and giving reporters absolute privilege can lead to as many abuses as having no privilege whatsoever might lead to. In the China spy case, the victim can't sue because he can't identify the government agency that leaked the false accusations. Only the reporter knows the source and he won't reveal it. In the meantime, Lee's life has been ruined and there's a government source still in place leaking false information.

There has to be some reasonable limits, balancing the needs of everyone.

Then get Congress to establish, once and for all, an absolute reporter's privilege. There isn't one now.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added)

No law...abridging the freedom...of the press. The first amendment guarantees the Government cannot limit the press. Congress cannot do as you suggest. They are not permitted. Such a law would, in fact, limit the press, for the reasons I've listed previously.


The Supreme Court has not ruled that the First Amendment provides one. Instead, it left it to the States to decide, and most of them have enacted various forms of Shield laws. However, even most of those State enacted Shield Laws have limits. They provide for a balancing test, weighing the publics' right to know and the value of anonymous sources vs. the other side's right to privacy, truth, right to confront their accuser, and protection. Equally valued Constitutional rights.

This, however, was a federal situation. Previously it was the thought and threat of Federal intervention which kept states in check from abusing a reporters confidentiality.

Further, when a person takes public office, as is the case at hand, they pretty much give up their right to privacy, as well as much of their protections against libel.

Anonymous sources should be rarely used. They prevent us from fairly evaluating the source of information (e.g. if the source has an agenda and is using the reporter for that purpose like the fake Bush military records). They prevent us our right to confront the "accuser" because the "accuser" is anonymous

Conversely, there are times when Anonymous sources are a necessity. There are repurcussions to telling the press things the Government would like to remain hidden, and without the safety of reporter privledge, those who would see our Government answer for their actions, may find themselves suffering the wrath of an irate government. Something few, if any, person is able to sustain. The government has no right to confront accusers. That is a right of the people as a protection from the government. The burden of proof lies upon the Government.

They lead to false stories (e.g. the reporter who made up stories using fake anonymous sources). Anonymous sources can and have been abused. They can lead to lazy and biased journalism. And protection of them in some cases prevents the protection of other Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

When the American public permits a few abusers to limit the freedoms of all, we have noone but ourselves to blame when the Government strips us of our rights. There is a cost to freedom. The occasional abusive reporter, like the occasional guilty man set free, is part of that cost. A cost which much be abided, by the People. It is not a perfect world, but better to err on the side of free dissemination of news and ideas, for ultimately that freedom provides the People with far better protection than any Government, regardless of its perceived benevolence. Once you give the Government the ability to limit and regulate our Rights (thus turning them into priveledges), it is extremely difficult to reclaim them

The tape in this case could have been under the gag order to protect the identity of a deep undercover agent whose life might have been put in peril and job in jeopardy should his identity be prematurely revealed.

As unfortunate as that may be, one does not become an undercover agent for the FBI without assuming a great deal of risk. The rights of the press far outweigh the rights of the agents of our Governments. It is far to easy for the Government to abuse any abridging of that right in the name of protecting its agents.


There were other ways to report that the Mayor was accepting bribes without airing the tape. At the very least, the reporter knowing of the gag order, should have requested a hearing to lift the gag order, not take it upon himself to violate the law. But he took that upon himself, and now is facing the consequences. I don't have a problem with that.

It is not for the Government to decide how the news should be reported, nor if it should be reported. Note that even the Court is not so foolish as to attempt to hold the reporter in contempt for showing the tape, but rather attempting to circumvent the protections afforded the press by holding him in contempt for not revealing his source. It is for just this reason that the People cannot stand for the government coercing reporters to reveal their sources.



The 1st amendment is fairly clear. You cannot abridge the freedoms of the press. By permitting the Government to force the identities of sources, you de facto abridge that right.

[quote]Instead, the privilege, such as it is, has been one created due to practical circumstances and legislated by many, but not all, States. And those Shield Laws are not absolute as is being advocated here. And despite the lack of one, our reporters continue to investigate and bring us the stories that you listed, Aidon. Our Government is remarkably free of corruption, in great part due to reporters investigative efforts. During the last Century, despite there not being a clear cut reporter's privilege, our Country has not sunk into the totalitarian depths that you are predicting for us now. Nor, do I think this case will lead us there.

The privledge was understood, and the need was seen as being so great that in earlier years the States themselves provided some official measure of protection. A permissive law in one state does not mean that it constitutionally permissible for states, or the federal government, to not protect this privledge. Your argument is specious. Further, it is the nature of the beast that we will never know how often the Government has succeeded in hushing the press.

It is that thought process of "...our Country has not sunk into the totalitarian depths..." which year by year whittles away at our rights and protections. When a people makes the mistake of entrusting a Government with the means of limiting our freedoms, because that Government hasn't abused them yet, or because the current Government is viewed as benevolent, it opens the door for less benevolent Governments to abuse the People. The founders understood that under any system of government you cannot be certain of what sort of people will lead..and thus the People require protection.

There are those who say, and not without cause, that the best government is a benevolent dictatorship. And it is true to a point. A wise and benevolent ruler can do much to help his people...but there is no surety that the next ruler will be wise or benevolent. Similarly, while a current US government may not abuse the powers the People have given it, over our Rights, there is nothing to suggest a future Government will continue this benevolent trend. Indeed, it is more likely that future Governments will further erode our rights.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is shown every day in America. From unfettered vehicular stops and searches by the authorities to the prosecutors who care more for convictions than justice to tracking and cataloging of what you check out of the library to the outlawing of certain information being posted on the internet, Americans continue to permit the Government to roll back our rights and protections.



No where in my comments have I suggested that there should not be some privilege for journalists. However, I do think their privilege should be balanced with other competing rights of individuals, not absolute. And I don't think reporters have the right to snub their noses at our legal process, putting their independent judgment over that of our Courts. If there is a Court order in place, they need to respect that just like every other citizen.

The Courts, like any other branch of Government, must remain open and public. As much as I despise it when the media reports on criminal cases (like Bryant or Peterson) because the American public assumes that indictment equals guilt more often than not, even that unfortunate circumstance is not sufficient to limit the freedoms of the press.

The Constitution allows the press to say whatever the hell it wants to say, but it does not say that the press shall become free of consequences. They did not yank the story off the televisions or prohibit any media from showing it - that would be anti-Constitutional, they instead said that the materials used in the story were obtained illegally and thus the person had to pay for those crimes. If a reporter tries to smuggle 10lbs of cocaine across the border from Mexico and gets caught, that doesn't mean that he can get away scot free because he plans on writing a story about drug smuggling.

The reporter can write and publish whatever the hell they want to, but there are limitations in place that everyone must abide by - these include gag orders from judges, documents not covered under the FoIA, and last but not least, slanderous stories. If reporters suddenly had no accountability about what they put on the air, then there'd be nothing stopping tabloids like the Star saying that their news is the truth.

No one's ripping off or force editing this guy's story, he's just having to pony up to the consequences of participating in a crime, just like every other citizen.

Thank you, Stormhaven!