January 01, 2007
The article, not surprisingly, expressed a sense of fear and dismay at the notion that journalists may be forced to become (shock, horror) American citizens who are subject to the same laws and procedures that are requisite with that title. Check out the hysterics from the journalist advocates:
"It will be unprecedented and, as far as I'm concerned, horrifying," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said of the case, for which jury selection begins in two weeks.It certainly isn't horrifying to those of us eager to see journalists held to the same standards they hold everyone else in society to.
Read more below the fold - - -> Our hearts break. In Journo world, you see, journalists have super secret and special powers to deny defendants their defense in criminal cases depending on their feelings towards those defendants (especially when they're Republicans). The First Amendment grants them, and no other citizens, that super secret power. Somewhere in the Amendment. Just read it:
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.See! Its right there! Journalists something something don't have to give up evidence they have that can exonerate a defendant! Ever! Hands off, BushCo!
Reality check. There are no federal shield laws on the books, and the Supreme Court has for decades upheld this standard. No special priviliges exist for journalists when it comes to testifying in criminal investigations. They vehemently disagree, but have refused to point to national laws which bolster their right to ignore a defendant's right to a full and complete defense in criminal cases.
Here are some more hysterics from another journalist advocate:
Roy Peter Clark, a scholar at the Poynter Institute, a school and resource center for working journalists, said he worries about the fallout from the trial. If it's perceived that reporters grant anonymity to officials engaged in political gamesmanship, prosecutors might be more likely to subpoena them in cases where anonymity was granted in serious issues of public importance.The article also makes it plain that Libby a) wasn't responsible for the leak, b) that Dick Armitage was responsible for said leak, and that c) there are no confidentiality concerns for journalists to hide behind in this matter because Libby is testifying as to his own conversations with the reporters. In other words, the original crime didn't happen like the journalists wanted you to believe it did, and now they're going to have to tell the truth on the stand about what Libby said to them. Under oath, under penalty of perjury."This case, it's magnified by the fact that it's in Washington and the status of the players," Clark said. "It's a bizarre and I'd say dangerous case."
In an amusing parallel occurance, dishonest scumbag Joe Wilson is also not keen on karma (in the form of testimony on the stand) coming back to bite him in the backside. Wonder what he's hiding. Too sweet.
Welcome to the cold, cruel master of legal reality, newsies. You talk a great game on your daily programs and in your magazines. Now its time to back up your reporting and posturing with those oh-so-elusive things that the justice system likes to call "facts."
Cross-posted at Mein BlogoVault.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
08:41 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.
Funny thing that: privacy. It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. No "right to privacy".
Interesting that nowhere is there written a right to with-hold evidence ina trial based upon a "reporter's priviledges".
Please let us see more reporters withering away in jail, clasped in irons, and responding to civil suits where they are penalized bazzilions of dollars for libelous statements.
It's high time that reporters are brought down to earth and reminded that they are not special. They have no more rights than any other citizen, and when they seek to assert those extraordinary rights, that they are smacked down hard.
If we need more jails for the reporters, then by all means, lets build them.
Respects,
Posted by: Gwedd at January 01, 2007 10:16 PM (pDOVp)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 02, 2007 01:10 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Roy Peter Clark at January 02, 2007 04:16 PM (evdGv)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 02, 2007 09:39 PM (v3I+x)
I'm glad you're honored. I'm no dummy when it comes to media law, unfortunately. Here's the problem.
If the threat of prosecution could happen to them, it could happen to any journalist -- or any blogger.
I sincerely hope, Dr. Clark, that you aren't suggesting that journalists don't have an obligation to testify in criminal cases in which their testimony is potentially exonerating to a defendant charged with a criminal offense, or if the journalist is a witness to a crime (or likewise if their testimony is central to a criminal prosecution).
After all, that's the standard American citizens are held to. No federal shield laws, no special privileges exist for the journalism class. Libby's case is a federal case, and therefore, there are no state shield laws that the reporters in question can hide behind in this case.
I understand your point, but this isn't a case on which to base your fear of free speech being chilled (which appears to be your concern). Libby's conversations with reporters aren't confidential, and therfore, won't get that kind of legal treatment. Again, there are no federal shield laws which the reporters (Russert, Mitchell, Cooper, Miller) can hide behind. They are compelled to testify in order to fulfill Libby's constitutional right to a full and proper defense - this is a serious, criminal charge, after all. It doesn't matter what your political persuasion happens to be - that's the federal law, like it or lump it.
You aren't suggesting, Dr. Clark, that you are above the Constitution or federal laws pertaining to a defendant's criminal defense rights and ability to call witnesses, are you?
Posted by: Good Lt at January 03, 2007 12:37 AM (D0TMh)
34 queries taking 0.0398 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
