While Mrs' Miller's stunt was just that, protecting sources in a free press is an absolute necessity, and the shield law should remain.
And, Libby gave per permission to quote him over one year ago.
Although the need to protect sources may arise in the course of normal events, the idea should be applied selectively. A "protected" source with an agenda turns the idea of an open and free press on its head.
Well, the shield never was "absolute," so it can't be absolutely necessary. And there is no serious proposal to absolutely remove it either.
Serious discussions about -any- shield (preservation of confidentiality) law involve balancing a need for criminal prosecution and fact finding with the priviledge of confidentiality.
I disagree.
If a journalist prints something witout revealing a source, this runs counter to an open society. In our legal system, you cannot be accused of a crime without your accuser stepping forward. In our journalistic system, you cannot print lies about someone (libel). To print a story, implying that someone may have broken the law, but havign no source to back upthe claim goes against these principles.
In the spirit of compromise, I would suggest this: a journalist should be forced to reveal notes and sources to a judge. The judge may decide if the source needs protection. An undercover CIA operative in Syria? The source may remain secret. Howard Dean spreading lies about Republicans? Publish his name.
These decisions should not be left to the journalists or editors. The Free Press is not free to make up lies, nor to play favorites.
I imagine her time in "jail" was not typical.
Most likely, she had TV, access to the internet, a computer, and plenty of time to start working on her book.
For some reason, I doubt she was breaking rocks on a chain gang, which she should have been.
I disagree. Journalists are no more "special" than you or me. If I have to testify, then they can also.
I believe your basic premise is incorrect. There is no shield law that would have applied in this case. Many states have laws like this, but there is no such Federal statute. AIM is making the point that they do not support the Federal shield law that is currently under discussion in Congress.
AIM is absolutely right about this. The "free press" should not have any protection like this that would basically treat them differently than ordinary citizens.
What are you talking about? Miller and the MSM are asking for a new law that would essentially say that all reporters (and how would one even define such a special person?) would never have to provide evidence in their possession, such as all of their conversations, documents, etc. arising in their daily work, to any judicial proceeding.
Remember, Miller did not even publish a story in this case, and she didn't go to jail to protect her fellow journalists, Novak and Cooper, the ones who actually did publish stories – Novak and Cooper agreed to provide evidence.
And not to protect Rove and Libby, the two government officials targeted in the investigation, they certainly didn’t ask her or anyone else to keep their status confidential – to the contrary, they were handing out waivers of confidentiality left and right to any reporter who spoke to them.
Her First Amendment legal position on this case and in this proposed "shield law" they are pushing is very troubling.
I must say, I was one of the ones who found it hard to believe that anyone would sit in jail for 3 months unless she had someone or something to protect.
I thought she must be worried about perjuring herself, probably because she was the original source of the Plame information to Libby and Rove.
I am now coming around to the view that it was indeed a publicity stunt.
It seems likely that she was not the one who first told Libby or Rove about Plame, so there are no "other sources" she was protecting, and Fitzgerald did NOT give the store away by limiting her testimony to the Libby conversation.
And no US Attorney who harbored even the slightest ambition for future political office, would go after a journalist from a big MSM institution like the NYT for perjury or obstruction – it would be madness. The evidence would have to be so overwhelming that it would have to essentially knock him down, put a gun to his head and force him to file for the indictment.
Judy Miller was simply an inconsequential piece of the evidentiary puzzle who thrust herself into the national limelight when she saw an opportunity to play the “First Amendment Martyr” for her liberal buddies at the Slimes, and atone for her “crime” in that in the runup to Iraqi Freedom she reported WMD stories that were unfavorable to Saddam. She was merely burnishing her liberal credentials so that her colleagues would speak to her again when she sits down in the lunchroom at the Slimes.
I mean after all, her husband went on a sea cruise while she was in jail, for crying out loud!
What a dingbat. Had Fitzgerald threatened to throw her into the DC lockup, instead of the Alexandria detention facility, she wouldn't have stayed two days.
Since Scooter had previously waived confidentiality, Ms. Miller didn't go to jail because of his testimony. She was there because she didn't want to be asked about her own criminal conduct.
She had identified that the FBI had a warrant for searching a mosque, and had called the mosque to ask if they had a statement about it. Revealing the existence of the warrant to the people to be searched was criminal. She agreed to testify after the prosecutor agreed to limit his questions to what was told her by Lewis (Scooter) Libby.
On the other hand, she may have another source (say, Joe Wilson) who she was protecting.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that such a federal "shield law" for journalists' sources already exists, but it does not. Most of the states have some version of a "shield law" but it does not exist on the federal level. Kincaid was arguing against proposals that are pending to pass a "shield law" in Congress. Given the massive, flagrant abuses of confidential sourcing by so much of the MSM, I see no reason to sanctify more journalistic malpractice with a misguided federal shield law.