Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Prank Monkey: [citation needed]

The guy who shot three cops dead in Pittsburgh because they were "coming to take his guns" had numerous right-wing screeds in his possession by such notable idiots as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Jared Lee Loughner, though fundamentally more insane than anything else, was clearly ininfluenced by a number of what are traditionally right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.

Jim David Adkisson explicitly went out looking to "kill liberals, African-Americans, homosexuals" and made a kill list based off of Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who are Screwing Up America".

Timothy McVeigh was a far right anti-government lunatic.

Wade Michael Page was a white supremacist.

I don't know if I'd say somethign as specific as mass killers are usually republicans, but there's a pretty clear correlation between conservative ideology (and especially far-right ideology) and violence against people. Crazy-ass left-wingers seem to be more intent with burning down property and smashing windows. Crazy-ass right-wingers seem to have an unfortunate tendency to prefer shooting people or blowing them up.

It's almost like when you have multiple fat farks on TV and radio all day long vilifying people they disagree with as subhuman and blaming all of the world's ills on those people that some of the less stable viewers and listeners might not react in the most level-headed and responsible way.

If only there were a historical precedent for that type of propaganda and its eventual outcomes that we could learn from....

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters Dick Cheney and his flying monkey minions in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Does *everything* have to come out of your ass? That's some high-fiber diet you got there.



\it was Cheney and his flunkies who outed Plame, proudly, to a douchebag reporter. We all knew who the criminal was right then
\\ I know, I know - "fact-free zone". Please proceed, Governor

This is why we have whistleblower protection laws (yes that are rarely followed). If you illegally obtain information and post it to the public, lets say I hacked someone's medical information and posted it online, that is breaking the law. You can't just claim that you are a reporter and suddenly its alright. Your actions need to serve the public good and there needs to be a reason you blew the whistle. This reporter has neither.

Zalan: Yeah, it must get frustrating for the many(not all) conservatives who would deny rights to anyone who doesn't share their political views/values to see that the 'libruls' want to defend the rights of someone who works for the other team.

No, they won't notice it , so it won't infuriate them.

It is a sign a wisdom to be able to show compassion to those with whom you do not agree.

A story of a boy who cried excessively of a nonexistent wolf comes to mind.

Fox News is not a reason to go after a press person. If there is legal reason to prosecute regardless of news affliation then go for it, if not then(much as I hate Fox News) it would be wrong to go after her.

Creates a bad precident and opens the door for more legal sniping on reporters if you don't have actual solid standing beyond affiliation.

Now back to the rest of the thread which will no doubt have the normal shills and trolls blaming liberals and so on so forth.

randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Yeah, it must get frustrating for the many(not all) conservatives who would deny rights to anyone who doesn't share their political views/values to see that the 'libruls' want to defend the rights of someone who works for the other team.

Jana Winter, a dogged and capable reporter who writes for Fox News' web site, is being by an overzealous Colorado judge who wants her to reveal her sources.

Lol, it's Fox News......they make up most of their "sources".

Mega Steve: Parthenogenetic: You've already forgotten about her "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling? ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

Wow...please tell me that was a joke or a troll.

our resident Jewish doctor used it first. Cat's out of the bag now

It seems like this isn't in much of the news because it isn't very interesting. Reporters can be compelled to give up their sources. This reporter is being compelled and is willing to take the punishment for refusing. It's really more of a "dog bites man" kind of story.

taoistlumberjak: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: theorellior: randomjsa: So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

What are you talking about? Mass-murdering gun nuts are usually, if not always, Republicans.

Citation, please.

Study it out, the evidence is right there.
Just study it out.

You'd make one crappy lawyer and absolutely the last person I'd want to defend any point of view.

You: "I'm innocent your Honor and I have proof!"

Judge: "Really? Do you want to present it?"

You: "Nope. Google it."

Rwa2play: Maybe it's because the judge placed a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case to blab and it's clear she got her scoops from someone associated with the case?

Crazy talk and all but...

You should read up on colorado shield laws before looking like an idiot. She can't be put in jail unless it is critical to the trial. She did not violate the order. Knowing who leaked is not vital to the outcome of the trial.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Still waiting for Cheney and Rove to face Treason charges over that incident.

protect those that do right
slam the bastards that do wrong

(no matter what side they are on)

The prospect that she may go to jail for doing her job is an outrage.

No, it's not. It's an occupational hazard of being a reporter.

Reporters don't have some sort of first amendment right to keep their sources confidential, nor do they (or should they) have immunity from subpoena. Even information that is confidential under most circumstances (such as medical records) is subject to subpoena.

Reporters do have the same option as any other citizen--to refuse to comply with the subpoena (which is Latin for "under penalty"), and take the consequences. In her case, consequences are likely to be incarceration until the end of the trial, at which point the information is no longer of any value.

Rwa2play: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree.  This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement.  Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

As a matter of principle?  Yeah, we should.  Even though she works for a "news" organization that's really a puppet of the GOP, I wouldn't give them the damn satisfaction of crying victim by letting them twist in the wind.

They'll do it anyways because that's the way they work.

that's not why you should defend her. You really, really don't get it huh?
Shocking.

There are lots of crazy people at way off both ends of the political spectrum.  The thing they all have in common is that they're farking crazy.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

<strawman.jpg>

I didn't want reporters thrown in jail for the Plame leak. I wanted Cheney thrown in jail for it.

Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree.  This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement.  Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

Dr Dreidel: randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident.

wat

Wasn't it a Libby-Libby Leftist at the Jew York Times who actually did get thrown in jail?

// OK, so Miller is not a "leftist", she just works at their HQ

You've already forgotten about her  "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling?  ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

the.squid: Magorn: This always happens.  COntrary to popular belief there is no legal "reporter's privilege" the way there is for doctors, lawyers, priests , spouses, therapists, etc.   So what always happens is somebody get pissed over the leak, the reporter  is pressed to reveal thier source, they refuse, a judge orders them to do it, they still refuse, they go to jail for contempt of court,  much media hand-wringing ensues, at some point the judge realizes that the reporter is never going to comply, at which point they have the option of converting the case into a criminal contempt prosecution for which the reporter can get six months in jail, or letting the reporter go, which they invariably do.   So why do it at all? Because A) the law says they have to, and B) a lot of times there is hope that seeing the reporter rot in jial puts pressure on the source to out themselves

You are slightly off, as with many issues like this the US, there is no federal shield law to protect reporters from having to give up the identity of their sources, however many states do. Colorado does have a shield law but from what I can tell it allows for Judges to compel reporters to give up the identity of their sources if they can be found through no other means. To me that sounds like it means this law is largely useless and based on the fact that this reporter is facing jail time supports that.

Colorado's shield law is a qualified privilege that sounds all nice and steadfast until you get to the qualifications. Reporters have no legal protection if:
"(a) That the news information is directly relevant to a substantial issue involved in the proceedings;
(b) That the news information cannot be obtained by any other reasonable means; and
(c) That a strong interest of the party seeking to subpoena the news person outweighs the interests under the first amendment to the United States Constitution of such news person in not responding to a subpoena and of the general public in receiving news information."

From my perspective, (a) is applicable here, (b) hasn't been fully explored, and (c) is totally up the judge's discretion, rendering the shield law about as steadfast as a bowl of oatmeal.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Man, it's a good thing there aren't any examples of the liberal MSM siding with Fox News in a conflict with a Democratic administration. Because that could be embarrassing for you.

And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press."All the networks said, that's it, you've crossed the line," said CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.

randomjsa: Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Yes, because outing a CIA operative is exactly the same.

/Wondered why conservatives didn't want people in jail for putting CIA operatives at risk. Hmmmm.

" Not as many people care about this as much as they ought to, which is one of the consequences of working for a nakedly partisan shiatshow masquerading as news outlet."

Perhaps if you're a child this is true.
No work on whether Gawker doesn't find Gawker to be a partisan shiatshow masquerading as a news outlet

abhorrent1: The judge should sentence her to time in my pants.

That's a pretty  short sentence

/Try the veal

You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it