Posted on 02/24/2005 8:59:58 PM PST by Former Military Chick
The New York Times has a qualified right under the First Amendment and federal common law to protect the identity of its confidential sources by refusing to release telephone records to a prosecutor, a federal judge in New York ruled yesterday.
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet ruled that a federal prosecutor in Chicago cannot compel the newspaper to turn over records of two Times reporters' phone calls in 2001 as part of an investigation into possible government leaks. The effort by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald came in the cases of two Muslim charities accused of possible ties to terrorists.
Yesterday's decision runs counter to a ruling issued in Washington last week. A three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided on Feb. 15 that reporters for the New York Times and for Time magazine can be jailed if they continue to refuse to answer questions about their confidential sources before a grand jury. The grand jury is investigating whether an administration official knowingly revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
Lawyers for the Times welcomed yesterday's decision, but some First Amendment experts said Sweet's decision may have little sway in freedom of the press cases outside of New York.
John Harrison, an expert on the First Amendment at the University of Virginia law school, said yesterday's ruling -- from a lower court judge in a separate circuit -- is unlikely to influence the full D.C. Circuit next month, when it is expected to hear an appeal by Time and the Times.
In any case, he said, Sweet's stance stressing reporters' rights over prosecutors' powers "is the minority position" among most judges. "The more common position is there's nothing special about reporters," Harrison said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It's just their sex lives we need splattered all over the web. (If they're pro-W.)
Hopefully, this extends to we, the little people, as well as the NY Slimes.
Reporters don't have any more right than you or I to protect criminals in the act of breaking the law. Lets hope this is overturned on appeal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.