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."

Comments

A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea

[Ray Yang]

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.

Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea

[SatanicPuppy]

The only reason a NYT reporter gets more consideration than some random blogger, is because the NYT reporter has a team of specialist lawyers funded by a large news organization behind them.

It's the same as any other setup where you've got a regular citizen compared to a regular citizen with financially unlimited legal backing. If you've got a problem with that, blame the legal system that is swayed by wealth.

Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea

[Moofie]

Freedom of the Press was not intended to have some chartered entity called "The Press" who was Free. The intent was to have every person (note: not every citizen, every PERSON) Free to do as they will, both in Speech and using the Press.

Look on the bright side

[antifoidulus]

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..."

Source article

[MrNougat]

How about the source article instead of a blog about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02pho nes.html
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com

Re:Fuck 'em

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:The Truth Will Come Out

[acvh]

"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.

Why should the press have rights we don't have?

[WCMI92]

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.

Re:Why should the press have rights we don't have?

[plague3106]

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.

If the information they want was part of a investigative story you did, you'd have the same protections.

I am sick and tired of the Times and other blatantly anti war publications like them putting our soldiers and our security at risk.

Oh right. Its the journalists fault. Not the people that SENT the troops there to begin with, not the people shooting at the troops. Its the journalists.

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.

There's a problem if the US attorney's office won't do anything about it though, especially if its corrupt government you're talking about. The correct answer IS going to the press. That's the only way to be sure the journalist isn't silenced in some way. I fail to see how telling anyone of an illegal activity is themselves a criminal. Maybe the people being called out SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ACTING ILLEGALLY TO BEGIN WITH.

Your logic defies belief. Its not the people breaking the law that's the problem.. is the people telling us about it??

Re:Judical activism

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Misleading story

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Misleading story

[Ritchie70]

Are you kidding me?

The reporters could probably (and arguably should) be charged with interference with an ongoing investigation. The right to a free press is (in my understanding) a right to write, for public consumption. It is not a right to take any random action in order to obtain facts for said writing.

If I have been assigned to write a story about the psychological condition of an executioner, am I justified in grabbing someone and "executing" them in the furtherance of my story? Of course not; it's both illegal and wrong.

It would, in my opinion, be one thing if they had been tipped off by this anonymous source, sat on it until the raids had actually happened, then used the information in their stories. Instead, they took the information they got, and contacted the targets of the raids in advance. Absurd.

Reporters are not magic special people. They should abide by the same laws and rules of reasonable conduct as the rest of us.

Re:The Truth Will Come Out

[MindStalker]

But they didn't make any laws. They simply stated that reporters are not above the law. Nothing new here, move along please.

Re:The Truth Will Come Out

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Already true

[andrewman327]

I am a reporter for my college paper with a penchant for investigative pieces. I already meet with sources in secret. Once I met with someone on a bridge over a highway for privacy's sake. Even where there are journalist shield laws, they do not protect the source. People who leak information (especially in law enforcement) can get in incredible trouble without the journalist having to reveal anything.

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.