Court rejects N.Y. Times on leak probe

[cal04]

The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe.

The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to track down the reporters' confidential sources for the stories. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment on the Supreme Court's order.

The case marks the second refusal by the court in as many years to sort out a clash between the federal government and the Times over press freedom.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_nytimes_3

[TaleWgnDg]

1. There is no federal "journalism privilege" . . . there is no

.

There is no federal "journalism privilege" . . . there is no federal "journalism secrets" . . . all may be subpoenaed, all may be divulged. Until and unless the federal legislature (congress) promulgates a law granting such privileges, then the U.S. Supreme Court will continue to rule that no privilege exists, period. Quite simple, really.

Oh, and btw, there is no "right to know" nor "right of the public to know" in our federal constitution. All that is merely smoke and mirrors and lovely sounding prose emanating from attorneys who must zealously advocate for their clients, period.

Umm, why be surprised? There is no surprise. Just non-journalism pressing their own position, their own cause as "news."


.

[deminks]

2. If the source committed a crime by revealing the information

then there is no protection. There should not be any protection. Now, who told Judy that the government was going to raid these charities, and why did they then call the charities warning them? Inquiring minds want to know, Judy dearest.

[Traveling_Home]

3. I thought that ....

I thought the issue wasn't the story being reported but that the reporters notified the two Islamic charities prior to the FBI conducting raids on them (with warrants and everything). A 'source' gave the reporters the information then the idiots called the organizations ahead of time giving them the chance to destroy documents and endangering the Federal agents when they went to enforce the warrants.

I'm not sure this fits the first amendment the way I see it. We need a better law to clearly define the protections for reporters and the cases in which reporters can be treated just like us common people.

[Supersedeas]

7. poor poor Judy...why does she have such credibility problems?

[seriousstan]

4. Court Rejects N.Y. Times on Leak Probe

The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe.
The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to track down the reporters' confidential sources for the stories. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment on the Supreme Court's order.

The case marks the second refusal by the court in as many years to sort out a clash between the federal government and the Times over press freedom.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/27/D8LLNPVG0.html

[Canuckistanian]

5. What do you think, Judith Miller?

What is your opinion of the great B* administration NOW, huh?

The profession that you once worked for and cherished because of it's freedoms, is now under attack.

Who you gonna call for help?

Scooter Libby?

[Gregorian]

6. I doubt it would have been a problem if a crime hadn't been committed.

It's a controversial case. But not really. If you are involved in a crime, your secrecy doesn't hold.

I doubt this will be the end of journalistic privilege.

Looks like Fitz is making headway.