Protecting Reporters’ Phone Records

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Dec 1, 2006.

  1. Stephanie

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Jul 11, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    :tears1: (stomps feet):baby4:
    Welllllllllllllll, ya thought ya all were above the law.....Guess not! They couldn't even get ole Ruthie Ginsburg to stick her neck out for them on this one...................

    Published: November 29, 2006
    A journalist’s ability to protect the identity of confidential(leakers) sources has been further eroded by the Supreme Court’s refusal this week to stop a prosecutor from reviewing the telephone records of two New York Times reporters. This is the latest legal blow to the diminishing right of journalists to shield(leakers) informants who often provide information of great interest and importance but who might be punished if their identities were known.

    The case arose from a Chicago grand jury investigation into who told the two reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government planned to take against two Islamic charities in late 2001. The government contends that the reporters, in performing the normal journalistic practice of calling the charities for comment, effectively tipped them off to impending raids and asset seizures, undermining the effort.

    Rather than drag the reporters into court, where they could have protected their(leakers) sources by refusing to testify, the prosecutor subpoenaed their phone records for 11 days in 2001. A trial court prohibited the government from obtaining the records from the phone companies, but a divided appeals court reversed that decision. Now the Supreme Court, in refusing to intervene, has effectively allowed the prosecutor to search through the records in hopes he can pinpoint the source of the leak.

    This is a bad outcome for the press and for the public. The phone records reveal the identities of lots(leakers) of sources having nothing to do with the leaks. The appeals court’s disingenuous suggestion that The Times might redact irrelevant records would simply have helped point to possible leakers.((how Dare they tell us..........THE GODS, THE SAVIOURS OF THIS UNITED STATES......US, US, US........ THE INTELLIGENTS OF THE WORLD)
    The privilege granted to journalists to protect their sources needs to be bolstered with a strong federal shield law that would preserve the public interest in newsgathering and dissemination of information.

    And damn our goose is now ready to have it's head chopped off......:dev3:

    Aaaaaa the sound of a toilet flushing.....:bye1: :bye1:

Share This Page