You want to argue libel law with someone that's been a working reporter? Really?
No, Kevin, with all respect for your often intelligent views. First of all, I would argue truth, the first and best defense. He does absolutely conform to the profile. Whether you agree with the validity of the profile is a whole *other* issue. Second, I'd argue absence of malice. Third, he is a public figure and the death of his wife, like it or not, was an important national event that had significant policy implications. Fourthly, no harm, no foul. My opinion has absolutely no effect on this man's life. There are probably other criteria that the opinion does not meet, but that's enough right there. If I were writing the lead news article for his hometown newspaper, standards would be a little different. Now Jennifer's assertion that I am biased and emotional on the subject because of some alleged past might qualify, if it were not so patently ridicuous. Dana On 7/9/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164158 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
