Dana, you know I'm paranoid of Big Brother government. In this particular case though, I think that the "collateral damage" to the press is self-inflicted.
Yes freedom of speech is important. From my read of the situation, there was no intent here to limit her freedom of speech. She's being jailed for a contempt of court in a criminal case.Just because she's a journalist, she doesn't have, and never did have, special immunities. An individual has just as much right to protect private conversations as a journalist. And the converse is true that a journalist has just as much obligation to assist in a criminal investigation as an individual when under subpoena. I'd dig up some case law supporting the whole Fifth Amendment deal I mentioned before, but I'd rather enjoy my weekend. And no offense, but I think you have toyed with libel in the Schaivo case. We all have in various situations when we get our dander up. -Kevin On 7/9/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting that I agree with all of your intermediate arguments and > disagree with all of your conclusions. But it seems to me that given > the murkiness of the issues that reasonable people may differ. But > still. I offer a few thoughts in the interests of furthering > discussion. > > I do think that the most important issue is that Karl Rove (if he did) > retaliated against a critic of the administration by endangering his > wife. He then (if he did) committed perjury and denied doing so. The > above is speculation based on a few newspaper stories. > > 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. > > I agree that almost anyone cna be the press anymore. See the case > where Apple Computers is suing a blogger. This makes freedom of the > press more important than ever though, not less. We are ony a teeny > tiny step from being individually silenced, say I, who was only > yesterday accused of libe. Granted, this was not a political case, but > this is a public form and what is being done to Judith Miller could > just as easily be done to Mike D or you or I if we had souces, not > that we do, but do you see my point. > > It's absolutely a free speech issue. > > Now with the commission of a crime it all becomes murkier. I would > love to know why Novak is for some reason immune. But the thing that > bothers me is that Miller didn't assist in this leak, she merely wrote > about it. She might therefore know something about it, but if her > source said for chrissakes if you tell anyone I told you this Rove > will absolutely set the spooks after me there might be good reason for > her to protect her source. And is not the willingness of government > workers to drop a dime on the likes of Karl Rove something we should > be protecting? > > Caveat - I have no special knowledge of this case and so my opinion is > subject to change as more news becomes available. I furthermore am > unable to shed any light in grand jury proceedings :) > > I should probaby also disclose a past career in newspapers, and a > father who is a journalist. > > Dana ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:5:164152 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
