Feds: Media Shield Bill Bad Public Policy

[Back]

Feds: Media Shield Bill Bad Public Policy (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l3&flok=FF-APO-1153&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050720%2F1651191023.htm&sc=1153)


WASHINGTON (AP) - The fight against terrorism would be undermined by a law to protect reporters from going to jail when they refuse to reveal their sources, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

Democrats, meanwhile, continued to pelt the White House over presidential adviser Karl Rove's role in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity. The Senate legislation has gained attention with the recent jailing of a New York Times reporter who declined to testify in the federal investigation into the leak.

Wow this leak has everyone talking. The Senate is now considering a bill that would keep reporters from going to jail if they did not reveal their sources.

Now, this seems totally bass-ackwards to me. I mean, if a reporter talks to a serial killer who says he is going to strike again, shouldn’t that reporter tell someone, and if not go to jail over it?

[Gan]

No arguments here. And if someone is harmed by their failure to do so, then they should face criminal and civil punishments as well.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Backlash
Now, this seems totally bass-ackwards to me. I mean, if a reporter talks to a serial killer who says he is going to strike again, shouldn’t that reporter tell someone, and if not go to jail over it?

This bill just gives reporters the same rights as priests and lawyers.

When I run tonight, I will think about how I feel about that right and post later. It is very complicated

[Soulpieced]

Sure they should. Likewise, that was "classified" information that came out. In other words, a serious security violation, which usually results in getting your clearance stripped, losing your job, and pretty much blackballing yourself for life because you illegally gave up information that can cause major damage to the United States. Damn right you should go to jail or have civil charges against you for not giving up that information.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Soulpieced]

[Gan]

While you're running perhaps you can respond to my earlier question as to why you wanted my address.

:nutty:

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Soulpieced
Sure they should.

If they should, shouldnt priests and lawyers who already have that right be also required and punished if they do not

[Soulpieced]

Yes and no. My argument consists of the fact that someone in this case was privvy to classified information, which involves signing your life away to not give away said information to someone without the appropriate clearance and need to know. That is different than trying to get a priest to whom someone confessed they murdered someone else. That's a lawyer's problem, this is the US Government and national security.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Soulpieced
That is different than trying to get a priest to whom someone confessed they murdered someone else.

how will the priest know if the murder is solved?

very complicated subject indeed

[Gan]

CNN also has an article on the Bill. It seems there are sponsors on both sides of the aisle from what I've read so far.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/20/media.shield.ap/index.html

[Back]

All this has made me wonder about Judith Miller and how she has become a martyr for this administration.

http://www.zendada.com/images/joa.jpg

[Gan]

I dont know if I'd call her a Martyr. We dont know what her notes would reveal. I think they could be damaging for either case if you want to be honest, but thats just pure speculation since she has not released her notes to the courts or anyone else.

Implying anything otherwise would be just buying into the conspiracy.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I dont know if I'd call her a Martyr. We dont know what her notes would reveal. I think they could be damaging for either case if you want to be honest, but thats just pure speculation since she has not released her notes to the courts or anyone else.

Implying anything otherwise would be just buying into the conspiracy.

What conspiracy? Seriously?

[Gan]

Perhaps I should have said... A conspiracy.

It seems my earlier statement implied there already was one. Well, an official one anyways.

[Back]

Ah, just a general crazy-ass conspiracy dreamt up by some crack-head somewhere about how everyone is out to get him after a week of no sleep and no food.

Who the hell do you mean? Me? Well, I can’t say I’ve ever gone that long on speed, and I can admit to some paranoia from time to time... but I am not the one investigating this case.

Surely you don’t mean Patrick Fitzgerald (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55560-2005Feb1.html) from the U.S. Attorney's Office?

[Gan]

Backlash...

Put

Down

The

Coffee

[Farquar]

I support the reporter shield law.

Consider the following scenarios.

Scenario 1: A reporter shield law is in place.
- X, an informant, feels confident in reporter's ability to keep him confidential. X reveals information to reporter. Reporter writes a story based on this information. X's activity may or may not proceed, but now there's a story about it, which can lead to independent investigations and public awareness.

Scenario 2: No reporter shield law is in place.
- X is fearful that reporter may reveal him, so X tells reporter nothing. No story is regarding X's activity is ever written. Public awareness regarding X's activity does not increase. X's activity may or may not continue.

Which do you prefer?

[ElanthianSiren]

I support the shield law as well. IMO it's necessary to the freedom of information that reporters be able to assure that their sources that they will be covered.

With regard to Miller's notes, I do find its broach timing pretty interesting though, especially given the predictable way that the left will vote on it.

-M