Slashdot Mirror
Ruling to Make Reporters Act Like Drug Dealers?
netbuzz writes "A 2-1 New York appeals court ruling yesterday will require two reporters to cough up their telephone records over a property-seizure case unless it gets reversed on appeal. As the dissenting judge noted, this kind of erosion of press protections will have reporters 'contacting sources the way I understand drug dealers do to reach theirs -- by use of clandestine cell phones and meeting in darkened doorways.' It's long past time for a federal shield law."
" 'contacting sources the way I understand drug dealers do to reach theirs -- by use of clandestine cell phones and meeting in darkened doorways.'"
Cool! Just like the movies. Leave it like this, the reporters will have fun.
This space intentionally left blank.
Who gets shielded and who doesn't? Is a New York Times reporter automatically better than a blogger? What about a press flack? The 1st Amendment is for *everybody*, not just reporters. The idea of creating supercitizens with special rights doesn't sit well with me. If your problem is with the way the government can invade our privacy, propose new rules for government behavior that don't trample on the ideal of equality before the law.
the number of porn titles has exploded since the 70's, so the sources will have plenty of names to pick from....Though I doubt journalists will be very pleased at having to write "my source 'Asian anal adventure volume 5' has informed me that..."
Monstar L
If you really think that, what methods do you use to get information about the world?
The press can suck, no doubt, but they're the best check on government we have in this country. Every law that hinders their ability to do their jobs, is a law that favors closed, tyrannical, government.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
How about the source article instead of a blog about it?
o nes.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02ph
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Then upon reading the story -- it's the same reporter!?! At least it doesn't look like she's headed back to jail this time.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
He said it already -- he knows the news is fiction because a fictional movie said so.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
And this is exactly what they were thinking of when they wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution:
So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?
My blog
The problem with freedom, is that there are always going to be people who use it in ways you don't approve of.
There are two ways to deal with this:
1) Remove the freedom
2) Understand that freedom doesn't just apply to things you approve of.
Now, option 1 is real popular these days, but I myself prefer option 2, especially when it comes to rights touched on in the First Amendment.
I hear people sneering about the First all the damn time. The "Hippie" amendment right? Right to pornography? Right for those press jackals to pry into your life?
The First amendment contains nearly every single right essential to democracy. Assembly, Speech, Press, Redress of Greviances, and Freedom of Religion/Prohibition of State sponsored religion. This fricking government has made inroads against every single part of this amendment, and I have no doubt they'd love to see it weakened.
So don't let your disdain for Fox news blind you on this one. Whenever the government starts imposing penalties against people for publishing true statements, its everybodys problem.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
The "no law" part.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?"
what part of "Congress shall make no law...." did YOU miss?
AND - how does requiring a reporter to obey the same laws and judicial orders that I have to obey abridge the freedom of the press. No one in this case is asking for prior restraint on publication or prosecution for publication; apparently a crime is being investigated (and I do believe that tipping off the subject of an investigation, allowing them to destroy evidence, is a crime).
I am no fan of government, but I am also no fan of knee-jerk responses to complex issues. A reporter for the NY Times is not above the law.
So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?
I think you are mistaken in this case. It was not the legislative but the judiciary branch requiring them to cough up phone records. While the legislators are not to be excused, the violations of our constitution today occur far more often in a judiciary that is increasingly acting according to personal opinions rather than to the intent of the law.
One question I have: if communication between reporter and source is truly anonymous then how does any reporter know if the information is legitmate? At some point anonymity had better break down between reporter and source. Because when a reporter tells me something, which they say is news, I had better damn well know what their source is and know that it's legit, or they are going to be hard pressed to get me to believe a word of what they're saying.
Another question is about the supposed 'only' methods of achieving the anonymity I above questioned.
From the article: "Only a clearly written federal shield law will give reporters and their anonymous sources the confidence they need to communicate outside of darkened parking garages."
Darkened parking garages? Please. How about just an office? Or a restaurant. Or, well, anywhere. If someone really wants to evesdrop on a reporter I can't imagine the reporter is going to be able to stop them by simply going to a parking garage. How about a public phone?
I am really just waiting for someone to tell me why I should believe anything a reporter says when their source is completely unknown due to total anonymity.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Okay this is definitely off-topic (and flamebait), but I gotta get something off my chest --
All this "social aggregation" stuff with Slashdot and Digg and Fark and whatever else - it's a giant blogspam circle jerk. I am bored with it. Somebody invent Web 3.0 already.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Amen brother. Its especially depressing because the USA is always touted as 'the land of the free'. Its like emails that start with "this is not a scam" If you have to keep telling everyone how free you are, thats a warning sign right there. :(
I like the USA in general, hell I even got married there, but right now, its not somewhere I'd like to live
Whether your Republican or Democrat, you need to start fighting this slide towards an authoritarian state asap.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Just because you are a reporter you aren't above the law. If I or anyone else would have to reveal something under subpoena or on a witness stand if it were part of a criminal case (and leaking classified documents is a crime), then so should the high and mighty New York Times.
I am sick and tired of the Times and other blatantly anti war publications like them putting our soldiers and our security at risk.
If you work at an agency and you think there is something illegal going on the proper procedure is to call the US Attorney's office, not the New York Times. The person who does the former is a whistleblower. The person who does the latter is a criminal.
Corporatism != Free Market
Not sure what laws you think don't apply to journalists...There is no license you need to be a journalist. There is no law against starting your own news paper/channel/website. They are just regular people.
The question you should be asking, is, why are regular people not accorded this protection? The answer has been (until recently) that you are unless those records are opened by a court subpoena, due to the fact that you are suspected of committing a crime.
The problem in this case is that the reporters aren't committing a crime. You see the difference? The government is forcing records out of regular citizens to use in witchhunts against whistleblowers and suspected lawbreakers. There is no part of that that is in any way cool.
Mind you, I think Judith Miller should be clubbed to death like a baby seal, but you can't stand up for freedoms only for people you like.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Maybe you should read the part about the powers of Judiciary. The Judiciary has no power to pass laws. (Judicial orders are another story, of course).
The problem with rulings like this is that they have a chilling effect on investigative reporting. If you're happy to have reporters cowering in fear of doing any real digging on a story, fine then. But the press is about the only true check we as citizens have on the power of government and if we defang them...well, if you think the Patriot Act is bad, as BTO would say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
My blog
This story is very misleading.
The FBI was going to raid some places they thought were linked to terrorist financing. The reporters found out. The reporters called the organizations for comment, in advance of the raids.
Hi, this is Judith Miller of the New York Times. Your organization is going to be raided by the Feds tomorrow to look for evidence in connection with a terrorist financing investigation. Do you have any comment on that?
I think the judges' ruling is correct. Reporters can't be allowed the privilege of anonymous sources when they take these sorts of actions.
But they didn't make any laws. They simply stated that reporters are not above the law. Nothing new here, move along please.
the judiciary branch requiring them to cough up phone records
They don't have them already? Apparently these reporters didn't use AT&T.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
You need to draw a distinction between "The Press" and "Television Media".
There are plenty of newspapers and news websites out there that really try to do a good job, break a lot of ground, and do the sort of reporting that holds the government in check.
I agreee with you about TV though. God they suck. They ALL suck. I firmly believe that the goddamn Daily Show is the best news on television, and that is so very, very sad.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
See, you're exactly the kind of person I was talking about in my other post in this thread: the kind who keeps making excuses because he doesn't want to face the fact that we're screwing ourselves!
It doesn't fucking matter what country this guy is from; it changes nothing about our problems, right here, right now! Stop shooting the messenger, and stop rationalizing that our problems are OK because the rest of the world sucks too. Our country was never intended to be like the rest of the world; if it were, we would have just made Washington a fucking king and been done with it.
The only way to fix our problems is to fix our problems, and the only way that can happen is if everyone wakes the fuck up and realizes that they exist. Starting now. And starting with you!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If you have read or watched All the President's Men, you will remember the secrecy that went into their meetings. Even though that is largely exagerated, it is not that far off the mark.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
So your saying that if I pass a law that says you can't run red lights, and some member of the press runs a redlight in presuit of their story, that law should be stricken from the books.
Get real, reporters are NOT above the law.
Please stop forming any opinions on what goes on here. Seriously, the news-ish bites on Slashdot are not a good way to get your information on the state of the US. To name just a few problems:
1) Slashdot is highly sensationalistic when it comes to political stories. They tend to report things in a way that casts an extreme negative light on the situation, leaving out relivants mitigating facts and such.
2) They tend to not check sources and facts very well. Heck they don't even tend to check if they've already posted something very well. You cannot rely on teh information as all that accurate.
3) Slashdot has very anti-government, even perhaps anarchistic tendancies. They see most any effort to control things as a massive problem.
Well a site like that, you don't really want to use for your news, just like you probably wouldn't want to rely on a more right-wing, pro government site as they are going to downplay anything bad the government does.
Yes, bad things happen in the US. Always has been, probably always will be. Police abuse their power, the government has corruption problems, etc. However I don't care where you live, you do a little research, you'll find your country has the same kinds of problems. There's no magical perfect bastion of freedom. All countries have faults.
However the US is not a dictatorship, we have not fallen in to a police state, etc. There are disturbing trends right now, things that many of us are working to fight against, but it's not like we are in the horrible way, which a revolution is the only way out of. If you believe that, well then you've been getting your news from the wrong sources.
If you are truly interested in what's going on, you need to spend some time on it. You need to get information form multiple sources, you need to try and hear all sides of the story, you need to make sure you understand all the facts. Don't run off screaming the end of the world when Slashdot reports an incident of rights abuses.