Hash: SHA1

My understanding is that she only went to jail because of a federal law
passed in the early 80's designed to protect undercover federal agents.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that were it
not for that law, there would be no need for a "shield law"...just
stronger clarification of that law.  Did this issue go before the
supreme court...have they ruled that the law is constitutional?

Freedom of the press should protect a reporter from prosecution fromt he
reporting of ANYTHING.  Reporting about a felon is fine(i don't think
current laws dispute this).  If in addition to that, the reporter is
breaking ANOTHER law by shielding a felon, thats another issue altogether.

We're talking freedom to report things, not freedom for a reporter to do
anything they wish.

Shawn Duffy wrote:
> Unfortunately, it's not as simple as protecting a source.
> Most shield laws, or proposed shield laws, as I understand them,
> protect a journalist from revealing a source who is exposing
> wrongdoing that is in the public interest.  This is not the same
> thing.  The act of leaking the identity of Ms. Plame is, itself, a
> crime, not the exposing of wrongdoing.  Now, sending her to jail
> certainly betrays the spirit of shield laws, but freedom of the press
> does not necessarily protect a journalist who is shielding a felon.
> On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're just trolling, right?
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> Sending a reporter to jail for not revealing her source sure sounds like
> its infringing on freedom of the press to me.  The issue isn't HER.  The
> issue is that if I'm someone that wants to blow the whistle on
> something, I'm going to be less likely to do it if the reporter I tell
> might reveal me as her source.  And of course, reporters might be less
> likely to cover such stories if they may end up choosing between
> protecting the source and jail.
> "On July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court by refusing to
> testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie
> Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is
> reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation.
> According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official
> ? later revealed to be "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of
> Staff ? on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson
> published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for
> "twisting" intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity
> was revealed by political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.)"
> That woman went to jail for not revealing the source, on a story SHE
> NEVER EVEN WROTE.  Thats dedication.
> Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
>>So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists
>>should be *special*.. how nice.  Where in the 1st amendment is the class
>>journalists mentioned?   She needs a WMD enema.
>>LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her
>>decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism
>>conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that
>>others won't face the same sanctions.
> --
>           Chris Clymer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8

- --
          Chris Clymer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8

Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

fn:Chris Clymer
org:Youngstown Linux User Group
adr:;;252 Colonial Drive;Canfield;Ohio;44406;United States of America
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to