The big difference in protecting sources and the first amendment

[Richardo]

Now I'm not a Constitutional scholar OR a journalist, but here's the thing:

First Amendment protections against journalists revealing their sources are intended to protect those who are exposing government wrongdoing/criminal activity, not those who are shielding government wrongdoing/criminal activity.

[Mandate My Ass]

1. It's so obvious and yet

all the big papers have presented it as the opposite. You know, the ones that have huge legal departments. The feigned ignorance is infuriating.

That and the claim that it wasn't news, everybody in Washington knew she was CIA. Yeah, but putting it in the farging newspaper blew her cover and it was done deliberately by those who claim to be doing everything they can to keep us safe from terror. :eyes:

This pisses me off soooooo much.

[shraby]

2. Very true, and they should also

be considered accomplices in the crime for having knowledge and not revealing it.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. Re: The big difference

I only now learned of this decision and haven't yet read the summary of the case, but I would make a different distinction. The first amendment applies equally in my opinion to those who would expose and those who would shield government wrongdoing. In this case, however, the discussions the reporters sought to shield constituted the crime itself (the outing of an undercover operative). I expect there would be a different outcome if the sources were merely repeating information they themselves had heard about a different party doing the outing.

[Richardo]

4. Nice distinction!

Welcome to DU!

[unhappycamper]

5. They keep chipping away at our First Amendment rights.

• The Flag Act passed last week in the House.
  
• DOJ ruling 2257, 'mandatory data retention' for ISPs. Link to thread here:
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1884589