Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Problem: You're a judge trying to force a reporter to divulge sources, but you can't throw her in jail. Solution: Fine her $45,000 and forbid anyone to help pay it. Nothing to see here, citizens   (online.wsj.com) divider line
57
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

2251 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Feb 2008 at 5:08 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



57 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Howard Finkelstein
2008-02-21 2:55:47 PM  
Seriously, wtf?

Worse, from the article:

There is a remedy. Last fall, the House of Representatives approved, by a veto-proof majority, a bill that would protect the identity of confidential sources -- unless the information is needed to prevent terrorism, imminent death or significant bodily harm, or involves certain trade secrets, health or financial information, or classified information whose release would cause "significant harm." None of these exceptions would apply in Mr. Hatfill's case.

Just make every conversation classified, problem solved, eh government?
 
Blues_X
2008-02-21 2:57:38 PM  
What if her employer gives her a $45,000 bonus? Would she be barred from using that money?
 
SphericalTime
2008-02-21 2:59:51 PM  
Blues_X: What if her employer gives her a $45,000 bonus? Would she be barred from using that money?

That sounds like a fairly good idea. It would have to be a bit more than that, because she'd get taxed on it.

Also, this is stupid. You're not going to get reporters to give up their confidential sources by threatening them. It just doesn't work that way.
 
Weaver95
2008-02-21 3:03:18 PM  
Blues_X: What if her employer gives her a $45,000 bonus? Would she be barred from using that money?

I'm sure the judge would fine her an additional $45,000 for having her shoes untied.
 
Pocket Ninja [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-02-21 3:03:47 PM  
So she pays it with her own money, then people give her money after the fact to help out with bills. They're not helping her pay the fine, they're helping her make ends meet. Easy out.
 
Control_this
2008-02-21 3:08:05 PM  
It's fitting the article was written by the main WMD liar in the leadup to the Iraq War, who served jail time for refusing to say who in the White House fed her the lies and fed her the Plame info.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2008-02-21 3:18:46 PM  
Control_this: It's fitting the article was written by the main WMD liar in the leadup to the Iraq War, who served jail time for refusing to say who in the White House fed her the lies and fed her the Plame info.

Point being what? We can ditch the First Amendment if the defendant is somebody we don't like?
 
Weaver95
2008-02-21 3:24:47 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom: Control_this: It's fitting the article was written by the main WMD liar in the leadup to the Iraq War, who served jail time for refusing to say who in the White House fed her the lies and fed her the Plame info.

Point being what? We can ditch the First Amendment if the defendant is somebody we don't like?

well duh - of course we do!
 
Karma Curmudgeon
2008-02-21 3:27:48 PM  
Journalists need to be able to protect their sources. But when your sources are using you to perpetrate libel, continuing to protect them is no longer doing the right thing.
 
Control_this
2008-02-21 3:32:28 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom: Point being what? We can ditch the First Amendment if the defendant is somebody we don't like?

Point being no matter how much the WSJ and Miller try to portray themselves as champions of the First Amendment, they are scum sucking whores who have defiled journalism. Now that Murdoch has taken over, they will even more closely resemble an official arm of the US Ministry of Information.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2008-02-21 4:29:27 PM  
Control_this: Point being no matter how much the WSJ and Miller try to portray themselves as champions of the First Amendment, they are scum sucking whores who have defiled journalism. Now that Murdoch has taken over, they will even more closely resemble an official arm of the US Ministry of Information.

I repeat my question: Do we just forget about the First Amendment in their case, since we don't like them?
 
LocalCynic
2008-02-21 5:12:14 PM  
How cute, the WSJ is letting Judy Miller play her victim card in their rag.
 
gshepnyc
2008-02-21 5:14:03 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom: Control_this: Point being no matter how much the WSJ and Miller try to portray themselves as champions of the First Amendment, they are scum sucking whores who have defiled journalism. Now that Murdoch has taken over, they will even more closely resemble an official arm of the US Ministry of Information.

I repeat my question: Do we just forget about the First Amendment in their case, since we don't like them?

No we don't. This judge deserves to be defied (as well as humiliated, mocked, etc.). The reporter should refuse to pay and refuse to give in.
 
LocalCynic
2008-02-21 5:14:06 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom: I repeat my question: Do we just forget about the First Amendment in their case, since we don't like them?

Is the First Amendment an absolute bar to inquiring into sources? If a reporter publishes libel or simply fabricates a source, should it be illegal for a court to inquire into that?
 
HotWingConspiracy
2008-02-21 5:14:51 PM  
Bleh, can't read anything from Judith Miller.

She's a propagandist and I see no reason to believe anything she has to say.
 
Hang On Voltaire
2008-02-21 5:15:42 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom:
I repeat my question: Do we just forget about the First Amendment in their case, since we don't like them?

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to not divulge sources
 
DrRatchet
2008-02-21 5:16:38 PM  
Did little muss run-amok ever admit to who she really works for?
 
Hal B. Sure
2008-02-21 5:17:36 PM  
Since USA Today can't give her the money directly, I suggest they give the money to me and then I'll
 
Karma Curmudgeon
2008-02-21 5:31:07 PM  
gshepnyc: This judge deserves to be defied (as well as humiliated, mocked, etc.). The reporter should refuse to pay and refuse to give in.

What about Steven Hatfill? Doesn't he deserve to know on whose behalf the reporter committed libel?
 
AndyMan1
2008-02-21 5:31:49 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to not divulge sources

Chilling Effect?
 
FarkingSean
2008-02-21 5:33:42 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom: Point being what? We can ditch the First Amendment if the defendant is somebody we don't like?

I do not believe the First Amendment was written to protect people who lie to journalists, subsequently ruining individual citizen's lives. That's not freedom of the press, that is freedom to libel someone.
 
mongbiohazard
2008-02-21 5:34:28 PM  
Karma Curmudgeon: Journalists need to be able to protect their sources. But when your sources are using you to perpetrate libel, continuing to protect them is no longer doing the right thing.


This 1.


Hang On Voltaire: The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to not divulge sources


This 2.


Reporters should NOT be a privledged class, America is not supposed to have a caste system. The same rules should apply to them that apply to the rest of us.
 
RoyBatty
2008-02-21 5:43:22 PM  
So we all remember Judith Miller who wrote the article, is the liar that ginned up much of hte propaganda shoved down our throats wrt Iraq.

And Stephen Hatfill who she claims to be worried about? Most of that information was printed by her employer the NYTimes when it was written about by her fellow NYTimes employee, Nicholas Kristof.
 
AndyMan1
2008-02-21 5:43:34 PM  
mongbiohazard: Karma Curmudgeon: Journalists need to be able to protect their sources. But when your sources are using you to perpetrate libel, continuing to protect them is no longer doing the right thing.


This 1.


Hang On Voltaire: The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to not divulge sources


This 2.


Reporters should NOT be a privledged class, America is not supposed to have a caste system. The same rules should apply to them that apply to the rest of us.

Let's say the government does something in secret, like torturing people, or raping baby seals or something really bad, and illegal. Let's also say they set a really harsh criminal punishment for leaking this.

You are government employee X. You have first hand evidence of these illegal and immoral actions, and you feel the world should know about it, regardless of what the government may say.

Would you want the reporter to whom you reveal you story to squeal your name at the drop of a hat, or to protect your identity?
 
moriquendi
2008-02-21 5:43:55 PM  
How exactly does a judge have the authority to order that she pay it personally?
 
Hang On Voltaire
2008-02-21 5:46:00 PM  
AndyMan1:
Let's say the government does something in secret, like torturing people, or raping baby seals or something really bad, and illegal. Let's also say they set a really harsh criminal punishment for leaking this.

You are government employee X. You have first hand evidence of these illegal and immoral actions, and you feel the world should know about it, regardless of what the government may say.

Would you want the reporter to whom you reveal you story to squeal your name at the drop of a hat, or to protect your identity?

If it went to court it would be up to a judge to determine if the reporter should reveal his/her source but there is NOT a Constitutional guarantee that you do not have to reveal your sources.
 
HeartlineTwist
2008-02-21 5:51:11 PM  
mongbiohazard: Karma Curmudgeon: Journalists need to be able to protect their sources. But when your sources are using you to perpetrate libel, continuing to protect them is no longer doing the right thing.


This 1.


Hang On Voltaire: The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to not divulge sources


This 2.


Reporters should NOT be a privledged class, America is not supposed to have a caste system. The same rules should apply to them that apply to the rest of us.

Any decent journalist shouldn't just take things from their sources at face value. I'm in a Writing for Mass Media class at my school right now. One of the best quotes I have about sources from my teacher is "Don't pass off their bullshiat as your bullshiat." You need to fact check. That said, I also know that the word libel gets thrown around a lot. Libel is a lot harder to prove in the instance of a public figure because it adds something to the distinction.

The biggest problem with being FORCED to divulge sources is because it still affects First Amendment rights. Granted, journalists aren't explicitly guaranteed the right to not divulge sources. But the fact remains that by not allowing journalists to protect their sources, you're essentially going to come to a world where journalism is going to falter in being able to be the watchdogs of the government.

As for the second part, there are lots of rules that apply to certain occupations that don't apply to "us." For example, doctor/patient confidentiality and the confidentiality priests hold in confession are instances that jump to my mind.

Furthermore, I find the sentencing of judges to sometimes be quite odd. Sure, fine her if you really have your panties in that much of a bunch. But where she gets the money from isn't really any of your concern. Especially if it's $45,000. Most people, especially journalists, don't just have access to that much money.

Finally, I didn't read the article completely, but the paper should be able to stand up for its own. Barring their involvement is a little harsh. After all, the decision to go to press was that of the editor, not that of the reporter. Decisions aren't just made by reporters alone.
 
El_Dan
2008-02-21 5:52:54 PM  
What is really nuts about this particular case is that it's a civil suit. I could maybe see an argument for holding the reporter here in contempt if the government was trying to determine who sent the anthrax letters, but instead this is a suit by the guy who probably sent the letters over his "damaged reputation." I find it really hard to believe that this guy's reputation outweighs the damage done to the press by what amounts to economic torture of individual reporters.

They might as well take Toni Locy in to a room and waterboard her.
 
AndyMan1
2008-02-21 5:53:36 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: AndyMan1:
Let's say the government does something in secret, like torturing people, or raping baby seals or something really bad, and illegal. Let's also say they set a really harsh criminal punishment for leaking this.

You are government employee X. You have first hand evidence of these illegal and immoral actions, and you feel the world should know about it, regardless of what the government may say.

Would you want the reporter to whom you reveal you story to squeal your name at the drop of a hat, or to protect your identity?

If it went to court it would be up to a judge to determine if the reporter should reveal his/her source but there is NOT a Constitutional guarantee that you do not have to reveal your sources.

Branzburg v. Hayes according to Wikipedia agrees with you. (briefly skimmed it)

I disagree with them. Denying that privilege creates a chilling effect which undermines the press' ability to freely report and keep the government in check.

There will always be abuses, but I'd much rather see a press allowed to keep confidentiality than one that is forced to turn over legitimate whistleblowers.
 
Descartes
2008-02-21 5:54:53 PM  
As others have said...

She has the right to print what she did.
But she has the responsibility to pay the consequences. Freeedom, err, libel isn't free.
 
HeartlineTwist
2008-02-21 5:58:17 PM  
Also, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters%27_Privilege
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws

I would support a national shield law.

I agree that she should face consequences if the ruling goes against her, but to bar any outside means of getting the money is ridiculous. As I said above, it wasn't HER decision to go to press. Her editor probably stands by her on the matter. He/the paper should be free to help her pay.
 
El_Dan
2008-02-21 6:00:33 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: SquirrelsOfDoom:
I repeat my question: Do we just forget about the First Amendment in their case, since we don't like them?

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to not divulge sources

Freedom of speech" means the right to speak or be silent. Sure, there are still exceptions for compelling state interests and the like, but it's plain ignorant to say that there is no constitutional protection against compelled speech.
 
Hang On Voltaire
2008-02-21 6:01:56 PM  
AndyMan1:
Branzburg v. Hayes according to Wikipedia agrees with you. (briefly skimmed it)

I disagree with them. Denying that privilege creates a chilling effect which undermines the press' ability to freely report and keep the government in check.

There will always be abuses, but I'd much rather see a press allowed to keep confidentiality than one that is forced to turn over legitimate whistleblowers.

Well we have survived a couple of hundred years without that guarantee and there is no shortage of anonymous sources. Hell we just found out who Deep Throat is and that was because he came forward
 
inglixthemad
2008-02-21 6:03:27 PM  
SquirrelsOfDoom: Control_this: It's fitting the article was written by the main WMD liar in the leadup to the Iraq War, who served jail time for refusing to say who in the White House fed her the lies and fed her the Plame info.

Point being what? We can ditch the First Amendment if the defendant is somebody we don't like?

Why not? We already conveniently forget other parts of that "piece of paper."

[image from home.new.rr.com too old to be available]
 
El_Dan
2008-02-21 6:08:47 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: AndyMan1:
Branzburg v. Hayes according to Wikipedia agrees with you. (briefly skimmed it)

I disagree with them. Denying that privilege creates a chilling effect which undermines the press' ability to freely report and keep the government in check.

There will always be abuses, but I'd much rather see a press allowed to keep confidentiality than one that is forced to turn over legitimate whistleblowers.

Well we have survived a couple of hundred years without that guarantee and there is no shortage of anonymous sources. Hell we just found out who Deep Throat is and that was because he came forward

That's because the First Amendment protects compelled speech in the absence of a very, very good reason.

How the hell is that balancing test satisfied when the beneficiary of the speech is a likely felon who filed a civil suit over his "damaged reputation"? Get real, you just hate journalists and are too stupid to understand what's going on here.
 
Deneb81
2008-02-21 6:12:21 PM  
Weaver95: Blues_X: What if her employer gives her a $45,000 bonus? Would she be barred from using that money?

I'm sure the judge would fine her an additional $45,000 for having her shoes untied.

Actually, he would probably hold both her and the company in contempt of court. A sham 'bonus' that out of line with her normal salary and the salaries of other reporters wouldn't be hard to prove as a sham.

Whether the underlying order is legal or constitutional or not, trying to evade a court order is solid grounds for contempt.
 
Deneb81
2008-02-21 6:15:32 PM  
El_Dan: Hang On Voltaire: SquirrelsOfDoom:
I repeat my question: Do we just forget about the First Amendment in their case, since we don't like them?

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to not divulge sources

Freedom of speech" means the right to speak or be silent. Sure, there are still exceptions for compelling state interests and the like, but it's plain ignorant to say that there is no constitutional protection against compelled speech.

No, freedom of speech doesn't include the right to silence when you're subpoenaed. That's the Fifth Amendment which protects against self-incrimination.

There are STATUTORY privileges that are recognized by the government, including psychiatrist/patient, husband/wife, etc. There are also constitutional privileges against testimony such as Attorney/Client.

But there is no constitutional right to reject a subpoena on anything other than the limited privileges or the Fifth.
 
commie4christ
2008-02-21 6:24:43 PM  
i agree that we should have shield laws protecting journalists anonymous sources. But also the guy fileing the suit wasn't convicted of the crime so i would assume he's probably innocent and if he's gonna sue anyone it sounds like he should be sueing jon ashcroft.
 
jules_siegel
2008-02-21 6:37:01 PM  
El_Dan: this is a suit by the guy who probably sent the letters over his "damaged reputation."

If he "probably sent the letters" why wasn't he charged for it, and put on trial? His reputation wasn't merely damaged. It was destroyed. I'm a journalist. If he was libeled, I think that he has an absolute right to clear his name and recover some of his financial losses. I don't think that journalists should allow themselves to be used as publicity stooges by malicious snitches.
 
El_Dan
2008-02-21 6:41:18 PM  
Deneb81: El_Dan: Hang On Voltaire: SquirrelsOfDoom:
I repeat my question: Do we just forget about the First Amendment in their case, since we don't like them?

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to not divulge sources

Freedom of speech" means the right to speak or be silent. Sure, there are still exceptions for compelling state interests and the like, but it's plain ignorant to say that there is no constitutional protection against compelled speech.

No, freedom of speech doesn't include the right to silence when you're subpoenaed. That's the Fifth Amendment which protects against self-incrimination.

There are STATUTORY privileges that are recognized by the government, including psychiatrist/patient, husband/wife, etc. There are also constitutional privileges against testimony such as Attorney/Client.

But there is no constitutional right to reject a subpoena on anything other than the limited privileges or the Fifth.

I never claimed there was a right to reject a subpoena. What I did claim is first amendment protection against compelled speech absent a very good reason, which should be considered by the court before it decides to enforce a subpoena.
 
mongbiohazard
2008-02-21 6:45:52 PM  
El_Dan: I never claimed there was a right to reject a subpoena. What I did claim is first amendment protection against compelled speech absent a very good reason, which should be considered by the court before it decides to enforce a subpoena.


You do know that judges generally work in courts, right? And that it's a judge ordering the reporter to cough up the source right?
 
El_Dan
2008-02-21 6:52:20 PM  
jules_siegel: El_Dan: this is a suit by the guy who probably sent the letters over his "damaged reputation."

If he "probably sent the letters" why wasn't he charged for it, and put on trial? His reputation wasn't merely damaged. It was destroyed. I'm a journalist. If he was libeled, I think that he has an absolute right to clear his name and recover some of his financial losses. I don't think that journalists should allow themselves to be used as publicity stooges by malicious snitches.

There could be many reasons charges were never filed. Not (quite) enough evidence, politics, liability for the guy's superiors, etc. If there was no evidence at all, this guy's name wouldn't have made it in to print in major newspapers in the first place.
 
jules_siegel
2008-02-21 7:09:44 PM  
El_DanIf there was no evidence at all, this guy's name wouldn't have made it in to print in major newspapers in the first place.

Er, isn't that what the law suit is about? That there was no evidence? And therefore the newspapers published a libel? If their defense is that they relied on informants they had reason to trust, why should they be allowed to conceal the identities of their sources?
 
youl100
2008-02-21 7:10:24 PM  
Karma Curmudgeon: Journalists need to be able to protect their sources. But when your sources are using you to perpetrate libel, continuing to protect them is no longer doing the right thing.

The simple answer is that she and the paper should just be sued for libel. If a paper reprints something that is libelous, even though it was a direct quote or a photo or something, the paper must make a decision whether to run that story or photo. If they do, they accept the consequences.

Finding out who the source is shouldn't matter. If what was printed was libelous, the paper is at fault, not the source. The paper could have chosen to not print it.
 
DrRatchet
2008-02-21 7:23:57 PM  
What usually gets missed in these cases, bith the FA and Judith Miller, is that these reporters were not witnesses to the crime, they were active participants in the crime. Journalists who are legitimately reporting on a story deserve protection. Journalists who are acting as a way for government agents to launder libelous speech do not deserve, nor are they entitled to protection under the first amendment or any other law.
 
jules_siegel
2008-02-21 7:30:01 PM  
youl100: Finding out who the source is shouldn't matter. If what was printed was libelous, the paper is at fault, not the source. The paper could have chosen to not print it.

I believe that in this case the evidence that it was, in fact, a libel is at least in part based on who the sources were and what their motives might have been.
 
youl100
2008-02-21 7:38:11 PM  
jules_siegel: I believe that in this case the evidence that it was, in fact, a libel is at least in part based on who the sources were and what their motives might have been.

As a reporter, if she questioned the sources motives or couldn't get any corroborating evidence or information from other sources, she shouldn't have used the information in the first place. Doesn't matter who it's from. That isn't the issue.

If it's libel, this guy has to prove it and that has nothing to do with who said it.
 
jules_siegel
2008-02-21 7:58:38 PM  
youl100: If it's libel, this guy has to prove it and that has nothing to do with who said it.

The court disagrees. The judge has full access to all the pleadings and evidence. Contempt citations as tough as this are not issued lightly. The judge has decided that the identity of the informants is crucial to the issue of whether or not the newspaper published a libel, apparently specifically to settle the issues you raise about corroboration, among others.
 
youl100
2008-02-21 8:10:53 PM  
jules_siegel: The court disagrees. The judge has full access to all the pleadings and evidence. Contempt citations as tough as this are not issued lightly. The judge has decided that the identity of the informants is crucial to the issue of whether or not the newspaper published a libel, apparently specifically to settle the issues you raise about corroboration, among others.

But if it is indeed libel, it doesn't matter who said it. It only matters if it is libel.


If the paper published it, they take the responsibility of having published something that is libelous or not libelous.

It either is or is not libel, regardless of who told the reporter.
 
Macular Degenerate
2008-02-21 9:23:16 PM  
Control_this: It's fitting the article was written by the main WMD liar in the leadup to the Iraq War, who served jail time for refusing to say who in the White House fed her the lies and fed her the Plame info.

You're a dick who obviously knows nothing about the facts of this case or obviously anything. I hope you rot in your pathetically uninformed personal hell.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

All the submissions, none of the calories.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.