Judge: Newspaper May Protect Sources

Newsday ^ | February 24, 2005 | LARRY NEUMEISTER

[Buck W.]

NEW YORK -- The New York Times has a First Amendment right to protect the confidentiality of its sources by denying the government phone records in certain instances, a judge ruled Thursday.

Saying that secrecy in government appears to be on the rise, Judge Robert W. Sweet refused to toss out a First Amendment lawsuit the newspaper filed last year to stop the Department of Justice from getting records of phone calls between two veteran journalists and sources.

[Buck W.]

Didn't see this posted yet.

[NormsRevenge]

A Carter appointee,, 83 years old, time for this one to go home.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/uGetInfo?jid=2324

Judges of the United States Courts Sweet, Robert Workman

Born 1922 in Yonkers, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on February 17, 1978, to a seat vacated by Inzer B. Wyatt; Confirmed by the Senate on April 25, 1978, and received commission on April 28, 1978. Assumed senior status on March 1, 1991.

Education:
Yale University, B.A., 1944

Yale Law School, LL.B., 1948

Professional Career:
U.S. Navy Lieutenant (j.g.), 1943-1946
Private practice, New York City, 1948-1953
Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York, 1953-1955
Private practice, New York City, 1955-1965
Counsel, New York State Interdepartmental Task Force on Youth and Juvenile Delinquency, 1958
Executive assistant to the mayor, New York City, 1966
Deputy mayor, New York City, 1966-1969
Private practice, New York City, 1970-1978
Consultant, Association for a Better New York, New York City, 1970-1975
Hearing officer, New York Transit Authority, Brooklyn, New York, 1975-1977

[Alberta's Child]

I read the entire article, and I'm not so sure the judge is wrong about this. If my understanding of the case is correct, the Justice Department was looking to secure these records through some kind of investigation or probe of these reporters. What the judge said is that the Justice Department can't just go around seizing those records without a grand jury in place that is overseeing the potential prosecution of an actual crime.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If we can't have secrecy in government then why can we have secrecy in the media who reports on the government? Dan Rather's career has proved that the media needs to be watched just as closely as the government does. The media have great power to affect what happens in government, and how everything is perceived by the public, which in turn affects who rules. The tie is clear. We must watch the watchers of government lest they corrupt everything.

[lOKKI]

I tend to agree with Norm. The judge may be right on this one. It sounds like a bit of a fishing expedition rather than a need to expose criminal activity. Of course, perusing one article doesn't make it crystal clear what the case is, but there ARE times when the government should be made to keep its nose out of peoples files.

[Alberta's Child]

That's right. Reporter Judith Miller is involved in both of these cases -- this one, and the one involving Valerie Plame. In the Plame case, the latest court ruling was that reporters have no such right to protect their sources when it comes to a formal criminal case. This article mentions these two similar cases, but doesn't make a clear distinction between the two.

Basically, I think it comes down to this: If a law enforcement official comes around asking questions, you don't have to tell him or give him a damn thing. If he has a warrant and/or a subpoena, it's a different story.

[Phsstpok]

The Supreme Court has already said that the press does not have this privelage, several times.

They must reveal their sources. This is settled law.

This judge is treading treacherously close to the idea that you can ignore the holy Supreme Court Precedent.

Roe v Wade is in danger if this ruling stands.

(that is not a sarcastic assessment - but it does put the libs/dims in a really really tough spot)

[Dilbert56]

And now, for the biggest impact of bloggers...

Who is a journalist?

Can't wait for the SCOTUS contortions on this. A couple of years back they took it upon themselves to define what is and what isn't essential to golf. Walking didn't make the cut.

Can't wait to hear what the uber-government tells contsitutes a journalist.