Media Subpoenas in U.S. Terror Case Raise Concerns

Reuters ^

[OldFriend]

Which explains why the america hating left is at war with John Ashcroft.

[alnick]

"We seem to be moving to a potential conflict between First Amendment interests and those of national security," said prominent press freedom attorney Floyd Abrams.

Sigh.

[browardchad]

Government prosecutors want them to confirm in court that comments they attributed to Stewart in articles were in fact made by her.

Legal experts say that without the reporters' confirmation under oath, the articles are considered hearsay and are not admissible in court. If confirmed, the information can be used as evidence.

I don't think asking reporters to verify their quotes, which appeared in print, is a constitutional free speech issue. There's no disclosure of sources involved, since these reporters openly attributed the quotes to Stewart, who has been eager to further her agenda in granting interviews through the years to left-leaning media.

When you get right down to it, the argument here is that asking reporters to verify the accuracy of what they write is a violation of free speech. Hogwash.

[Tamzee]

When you get right down to it, the argument here is that asking reporters to verify the accuracy of what they write is a violation of free speech. Hogwash.

Exactamundo.