Skip to main content

It is time for a Federal Shield Law for Journalists

New York Times Reporter Jailed for Keeping Source Secret

Today Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail rather than devulge her sources in the Plame investigation.

She's not the first or last. Here is a list of journalists jailed for fined for refusing to testify since 1984.

That link above is the "source" to go to if you are a journalist and want information about the Plume case or other cases involving feedom of the press and specifically information about shield law; privacy issues, as well as a great source for background on the Plume story. Main page is here The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Here is their Excutive Director's press release after Judith was sentenced.

While I don't see the press's role as a "government watchdog", nonetheless, I do see the need for Federal Shield Laws. The current laws are convoluted and confusing, with different States having differing critera. If bloggers want to really become the "new media" they need to get the information on what is going on in current legislation regarding proposed Federal Sheild Laws, as well as know what the current laws for their state.

For example for those who cite the DC Court of Appeals ruling that "The First Amendment does not provide a priviledge from testimony before a grand jury. Yes, that was the ruling. However:

"The judges unanimously agreed that the First Amendment does not provide a privilege from testimony before a grand jury, but split on the issue of whether a "common law" privilege -- one rooted in previous court decisions, not the constitution -- exists. In any case, all agreed that a common law privilege would have been overcome by the prosecutor by apparently showing that the information was critical and only available from the journalists -- although that part of the court's opinion was redacted from the public version." - Read more here.

Again, the need for clarification. The site also has the pending legislation regarding this.

Sooner or later - as in fact it already has in the past - this will begin to affect those bloggers who cite 'confidential sources', and faced with the "Do I give them up; or go to jail?"

Also read this OPED from Theordore Olsen from June 12th, 2005 regarding this issue. (Note this was prior to the Supreme Court Declining to hear the case on June 26th).


Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?


As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Able Danger - Sign Up - Get the Truth

Per the Able Danger Blog (newly added link), get over to this petition and sign ur name. Again, if there is any chance of true bi-partisan hearings, the people are going to have to speak up and loud.

Just do it!

Newsbusters Busts the MSM on Bush Event

Newsbusters, the blog of Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, exposes the MSM attempt to spin President Bush's meeting with troops into a 'staged event'.

Truth is that the event was not staged, the troops were telling their real feelings: that they support the war and our President.

I guess they might have this story mixed up with the "planted question" to Sec. Rumsfeld back in December 2004.

Yet, that wasn't the case here, Soldiers when asked, will tell you the truth.

Just like in this picture, they tell it like it is!

Michelle Malkin has links to other reactions. Also Blogs for Bush.

UPDATE I: Michelle has a further reponse from one of the soldiers in the video. Here's an excerpt:

"First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, so I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us NOT to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share …