it should! I dunno if it's true but it's very scary if it is. On 7/9/05, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The last comment is what gets me: > > Did you read today in the NYT that the Cleveland Plain Dealer is withholding > publication of an investigative series because it features reporting from > illegally leaked documents, and they're worried about the reporters going to > jail? The chilling effect has begun. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:11 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: the advent of thought crime > > > I am not sure whether she has refused to testify at all vs testify as > to her source, but what the prosecutor really wants is the name of her > source, right? So the distinction seems academic. I thought the Time > reporter was released from his pledge by his source.... but I coud be > wrong. > > Here's another discussion I'd consider moderate and objective (your > mileage may vary) > > http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2005/07/seeing_ > both_sid.html > > online edition and blogs ยป > > July 07, 2005 > Seeing both sides of the Judith Miller case > Stephen Baker > I've been steering clear (at least on this site) of this debate over > confidential sources. It's getting plenty of attention elsewhere and > only touches the theme of this blog--blogging--obliquely. But I think > it's important for everyone at least to understand and respect both > sides of the issue. That's why I was disturbed to see the judge in the > case, Thomas F. Hogan, demean Miller's stand. Here he is in today's > Times: > > "That's the child saying: 'I'm still going to take that chocolate chip > cookie and eat it. I don't care." > > 10:46 AM > > > mainstream media > > > Trackback Pings > TrackBack URL for this entry: > http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1192 > > Comments > Seems like this case could bear on bloggers more directly than it > might first appear. If journalists have no way to protect their > sources, what chance will bloggers--most of whom lack the financial > backing of media organizations--have against government pressure? > > Posted by: Rob Hof at July 7, 2005 01:04 PM > > A self-important, runaway federal prosecutor has sent an conscientious > New York Times reporter, Judith MIller, to jail because he apparently > hopes to give some bureaucrat the Martha Stewart treatment. > > He wants to make examples of the reporter and the bureaucrat because > the former has defied him and, apparently, the latter may have lied to > federal officials, which is a crime. > > Instead, he's the pariah, the betrayer of our Constitution and heritage. > > The special prosecutor is being unethical, because the ethical thing > to do is to act in behalf of the greater good. > > In all cases, freedom of the press produces more benefits to our > country than the outcome of any criminal prosecution or the defense of > any legal principle or rule, other than the First Amendment. > > Without freedom of the press, we are a dictatorship. When there is no > freedom of the press, rumors rule and rulers are mistrusted. The rule > of law is a joke and prosecutors, judges and government officials are > despised. > > It's easy to hate government and politicians when you don't know what > you're talking about, and without freedom of the press, there will be > millions of know nothings who will spew hatred as never before. > > That's where we are and where we're going. > > Posted by: Donald E. L. Johnson at July 7, 2005 07:01 PM > > The problem with the Judith Miller case is that everybody is looking > at it as a First Ammendment issue. Judith Miller is not being > prosecuted for what she wrote. She is being prosecuted for obstruction > of justice. Her source leaked sensitive information that they had been > sworn to keep secret, and in doing so, committed a federal crime. > > I believe strongly in the first ammendment, but I beleive in the > responsible exercise of free speech. Printing a story that endangers > the life of an individual already at high personal risk for the good > of our country is unethical, but that is not what she is going to jail > for. > > Miller is going to jail for protecting a source who knowingly > endangered an individual in the service of our country. That is a > freedom none of us should have. > > Posted by: M. A. Smith at July 8, 2005 09:37 AM > > While I don't agree with M.A. Smith on this issue, I respect him/her > for weighing both sides of the issue. But I don't think we know that > Miller is protecting the leaker. She may only be protecting a person > who told her (or didn't tell her) about the leaker. > > Posted by: steve baker at July 8, 2005 10:17 AM > > I've posted this on my blog: > > With all due respect, the press has a special place in our > Constitution and society. Without a free press that is free to gather > information from all sources without recrimination, you have even more > government secrecy and corruption. > > Because our country is so large and complex and our media's resources > are so limited, we already are faced with unprecedented governmental > secrecy and corruption, especially in the major metro areas like NYC, > Chicago, LA and Washington, DC. > > Reporters need all the help they can get to ferret out the corruption > and misdeeds in government, and most whistle blowers won't talk unless > promised that their names won't be used in any way, including in the > courts. > > What we as readers have to do is understand that honest reporters > treat confidential sources with some suspicion and check out what they > say before going to press. This, apparently, is what Judith Miller > did. She listened to her source (s) and decided they didn't have the > goods and never did a story, possibly because she didn't want to break > a law. > > What about dishonest, lazy reporters? Yes, they exist, but they don't > last. Reporters who abuse the use of unnamed sources eventually are > found out and are fired, driven out of the business. Their editors > figure them out and/or their sources do, and they're out of the > business. > > If you trust powerful government bureaucrats and ambitious > politicians, not to mention government contractors, etc., to work > honestly without public oversight, you're missing the point. Power > corrupts. And as much as I wish there was more intellectual integrity > in journalism than there is, I'll trust the journalists a heck of a > lot more than any politician or government official. > > Posted by: Donald E. L. Johnson at July 9, 2005 01:04 PM > > Did you read today in the NYT that the Cleveland Plain Dealer is > withholding publication of an investigative series because it features > reporting from illegally leaked documents, and they're worried about > the reporters going to jail? The chilling effect has begun. > > Posted by: steve baker at July 9, 2005 01:27 PM > > > > n 7/9/05, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > However, while the freedom of the press issues might be collateral > > > damage, this might be longer lasting and more significant than the > > > arrogance of one administration or the peril of one agent. > > > > My understanding of the jailing of the reporter was because of her > > refusal to testify at all in the face of a subpoena not that she would > > not reveal her sources at all. The other reporters called in on this > > independent council have at least testified - in private - in regards > > to the request (inquest). > > > > Hatton > > > > > > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164146 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
