Skip to comments.TIME and New York Times react to Supreme Court.
Posted on 06/27/2005 8:13:48 AM PDT by Pikamax
View Forum Post Topic: Miscellaneous items Date/Time: 6/27/2005 10:33:46 AM Title: New York Times on Supreme Court's 6/27 decision Posted By: Jim Romenesko
Statement From The New York Times
We are very disappointed in the Supreme Courts determination not to review this very vital and controversial case; we fully support the position of Judith Miller and her decision to honor the commitment she made to her sources.
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times, said, "It is shocking that for doing some routine newsgathering on an important public issue, keeping her word to her sources, and without our even publishing a story about the CIA agent, Judy finds herself facing a prison sentence. That 49 states and many countries around the globe provide broad protection for journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources, makes todays decision even more disappointing. And it is doubly painful that the Court rejected our case in the face of the plea of 34 state attorneys general, prosecutors who normally seek journalists evidence, that anonymous sources are critical to provide information to the public.
Judith Miller said, I am extremely disappointed. Journalists simply cannot do their jobs without being able to commit to sources that they wont be identified. Such protection is critical to the free flow of information in a democracy."
Topic: Miscellaneous items Date/Time: 6/27/2005 11:03:38 AM Title: Time Inc. on Supreme Court's 6/27 decision Posted By: Jim Romenesko
Time Inc. Statement re: Matt Cooper Case -- June 27, 2005
We are disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear the important issues presented by Matthew Cooper and Time Inc. v. United States of America.
It is important to know whether the First Amendment and the federal common law provide protection for journalists confidential sources, as do the laws of 49 states and the District of Columbia.
We and Matt Cooper shall now seek a prompt hearing from the federal district court that first held us in civil contempt. We shall ask Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan to reassess the privilege issues. We believe that changes in the status of the Special Prosecutors investigation and intervening guidance from the Court of Appeals on evidentiary privileges under federal common law merit such a reassessment.
Statements from the Special Counsels office suggest his investigation has changed substantially since last summer, when he presented secret evidence to the district court. There is reason to believe, for example, that the Special Counsel may have determined that disclosure of Valerie Plames identity to Robert Novak did not violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If that is correct, his desire to know the sources for a subsequent article by Mr. Cooper and others, that appeared on Time.com, may be solely related to an investigation into whether witnesses made false statements during the course of his investigation into this non-crime. Such an investigation of obstruction of justice or perjury may not rise to the level that justifies disclosure of information from or about a reporters confidential sources under federal common law.
Under these circumstances, where the facts appear to have changed and where the appeals court has since elaborated on a reporters privilege under common law, Time Inc. and Matt Cooper will ask the District Court to review and reassess its orders.
We think it premature for Time Inc. and Matt Cooper to articulate final positions until Judge Hogan has ruled on our request for review and reassessment.
And what Dum planter is willing to be sued into oblivion. don't you just love it when the worm takes a turn.
Did they make a peep about the New London case?
Regardless of the abuse of them, anonymous sources are vital to journalism.
The SCOTUS is wrong here.
They seem rather concerned about their civil liberties today. It's a shame they weren't so concerned last Thursday, when the 5th amendment was repealed.
I'm not so sure about that. All they're really saying is that, when a crime is being investigated as a result of an anonymous source, the person making the charge (a witness) must be willing to come forward.
Anonymous sources are not prohibited as a result of this. We have witness protection programs; if the source felt in danger and the crime was of significance, I'm sure protection would be arranged.
Journalists are no different than anyone else -- they don't have any kind of special right to refuse to cooperate in a criminal or civil case.
The NY Times had an editorial that strongly supported the SCOTUS decision in favor of the government expropriating private property for private uses.
Also, for the times when you want to manufacture memos in order to execute a successful coup. /sarcasm
Now how many of these gutless wonders are ready to play this nasty game. Are these MSM types going to give them free legal services. Plus the media will no longer be able to hide behind their secret sources any longer.
Figures. Lie to,cheat, and steal from, the American public The new motto of the NYT
So you are of the opinion that "journalists", hwoever defined, have more constitutional rights than non-journalists?
"Did they make a peep about the New London case?"
Yeah, to say that they supported the court's dismemberment of the Bill of Rights.
I'm very happy to see that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot.
The United States is NOT a democracy...
What else does Judy NOT know.?..
Nah, this will turn out for the better. In this case there is a good chance that the anonymous sources not only lied, but broke the law in doing so, and leaked other security information to these same reporters. These reporters are also suspected of passing that security information on to a terrorist supporting group. The reporters are not just covering for their sources, they are covering for themselves.
I get a certain amount of schadenfreude from the fact that Robert Novak who started this whole commotion walks away untouched by it while two liberal reporters Judith Miller and Matt Cooper face jail.