Funny how the "already captured press" did not stand to defend the Church when the Courts were breaking down the
clerics right to privacy with their confessors. Now the
press is again moaning about the loss of their first amendment rights.Too bad they didn't recall that popular
skit about the Nazi First they came for . . . but I wasn't
... so I did nothing. . . then when they came for me there was no-one left to stand with me.(poor rememberence of it-but I reckon others smarter than I will know whereof I speak.)
The press loudly complained that whoever exposed Valerie Plame's identity committed a criminal act, and then the press complained when federal prosecutors asked a reporter who the source of this supposed criminal act was.
If it was a criminal act, then this reporter is complicit, and doubly complicit for covering it up. There is no obligation to keep a criminal communication confidential.
So, which is it?