Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Reporters may know answers to whether the admin illegally released info on a CIA agent.

The reporters refuse to answer questions for a special prosecutor.

Judge threatens them each with contempt and jail.


Question:
Does the first amendment or anything else give reporters an unfettered right to protect sources?

Does the first amendment or anything else give reporters a fettered right to protect sources? If so, where do we draw the line? Personally, for anything involving well-defined state secrets, I'm in favor of locking reporters up indefinitely so that people understand there is no protection. There can be no protection for the act itself of talking to a reporter, so how can there be protection to encourage people to commit such acts?

All of that said, why the fuck don't they go right to the source and throw Novak in?

Anyway, kudos to the judge.

Hello

Timely question:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge ordered a reporter held for civil contempt on Monday and ruled that journalists at NBC News and Time magazine must testify in the investigation into whether the Bush administration illegally leaked a covert CIA officer's name to the media.

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Hogan rejected requests to quash subpoenas to Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine for violating their First Amendment rights.

The subpoenas, issued by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, require that Russert and Cooper appear before a federal grand jury to testify about conversations with an unidentified government official who was a confidential source.

In an order on Monday, Hogan said Cooper and Time at a hearing on Friday refused to comply with the subpoena despite his ruling and he held them in civil contempt of court. The ruling was dated July 20, but released on Monday.

The reporter was ordered "confined at a suitable place" and Time was fined $1,000 a day until they complied. The judge did not specify where Cooper would be confined.

Hogan stayed Time's fine and granted Cooper bail while they appeal the contempt finding to the U.S. appeals court. He said the appeals presented "substantial legal questions."

Citing a 1972 Supreme Court ruling, Hogan said a reporter called to testify before a grand jury about confidential information enjoyed no First Amendment protection.

"The information requested from Mr. Cooper and Mr. Russert is very limited, all available alternative means of obtaining the information have been exhausted, the testimony sought is necessary for the completion of the investigation and the testimony sought is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt," Hogan wrote.

He ruled that Cooper and Russert have no reporters' privilege, qualified or otherwise, that would excuse them from testifying before the grand jury.

From Reuters.

eta this disturbing picture: