Paywalled. Anyone got a readable link?
If you're using chrome you can just open an incognito window and view it there.
In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#12To save everyone from having to look it up:
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.
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#13Federal law doesn't recognize a "reporter's privilege" to refuse testimony about sources. Some states do (this is a federal case, not a state one) but those protections are often qualified, for instance preventing reporters from being forced to testify as a "first resort", but requiring testimony if all other investigative avenues are exhausted.
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#14The following really struck me: "In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. — the court whose decisions cover the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — ruled that the First Amendment provides no protection to reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them."…
Many leaks are authorized. The White House leaks all the time.
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#15Anybody surprised about this? This is in line with what we have seen before. The "war on the whistle blower". Next we'll see attempts to make it illegal to publish classified information after it has been received (or maybe it is already - see the Wikileaks disaster). In that case the reporter and the news outlet itself would be held responsible.
I'm not surprised because courts have been holding reporters in contempt for decades for attempting to assert a privilege against outing sources that the law does not recognize.
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#16The following really struck me: "In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. — the court whose decisions cover the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — ruled that the First Amendment provides no protection to reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them."…
Playing devils-advocate here, but this isn't really new -- the fourth estate flourished because of journalists who vowed to go to prison rather than reveal sources, and it became a game of chicken that Journalists won in that era. Now it's the Government that has decided not to blink and the weakened resolve of news organizations has made it easy for them to trample over hard-won gains of decades past.
There, to my knowledge, have never been codified protections for journalists -- just standards.
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#17To save everyone from having to look it up: 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.
Congress in this instance has not made any law prohibiting a reporter from publishing a story, and reporters being required to testify is just one of a myriad of circumstances in which parties to controversies can be required to testify in one way or another.
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#18Doesn't seem any different than Judith Miller, who is mentioned at the end of page 2. She went to prison instead of revealing her sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Contempt_of_cour...
Miller disclosed her source after being released.
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#19The government ruled in favor of the government and against individual rights again? At least they're consistent.
the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor.
> the courts always rule in favor of the executive branch. every single ruling. don't even bother reading the opinions; there's nothing useful in those. if you see "United States" at the top, you'll immediately know the victor.
United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) [1] -- particularly relevant in the area of domestic surveillance -- disagrees with you.
[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/297/case.html
Re: In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify
#20To save everyone from having to look it up: 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.
Congress in this instance has not made any law prohibiting a reporter from publishing a story, and reporters being required to testify is just one of a myriad of circumstances in which parties to controversies can be required to testify in one way or another.
If the freedom of the press is infringed, and the infringement was legal, that must mean Congress made a law infringing on the freedom of the press, right?