Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (76160)	10/2/2003 11:15:33 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

That article is a hyperbolic response to what, if one reads the article carefully, is not at all an unreasonable letter. As far as can be told from the text of the article, the letter is NOT a demand that the journalists turn over a thing to the FBI. They aren't bypassing anything at this point. The letter, as I read the article, does two things. First, it advises journalists that there is a criminal investigation underway, that their records MAY be subpoeaned under provision of law, and that the journalists keep their records intact so that they will be available IF such subpoenas are in fact duly issued by a court. Seems eminently reasonable to me. The journalists will have every right to oppose the subpoenas and make sure they conply with DOJ requirements, etc. It's just that IF subpoenas are issued and upheld, the records should not have been destroyed first. Nothing wrong with that, that I can see. Second, the letter "asks" (doesn't demand, and given the hyperbole of the authors of the article, if there were a demand, they would certainly have used that word, not "ask") that the journalists keep this letter confidential. Makes sense to me. Active criminal investigations do require a measure of secrecy. Journalists frequently get such requests from law enforcement (don't mention that the victim was strangled with a yellow ribbon, please; we want touse that in interviewing suspects to see whether they mention the color of the ribbon, since only the actual perpetrator would know that. Also, we don't want to give enough details for copycats to be able to copy the crime and make the investigation harder). Nothing at all unusual in asking journalists to keep certain activities of law enforcement confidential. The rest of the article is an attack on this approach of the FBI. But if the author of the article is correct that this approach is contrary to law, the subpoenas won't get issued, or if they are by some tame judge of the FBI, they will get squelched. In that case, nobody is hurt, and the useful result of clarifing the law will occur, which is to everyone's benefit. Right now, it's obviously not clear exactly what the Patriot Act and ECTRA do and don't cover. That's pretty normal with complex laws -- nobody really knows that they mean until the courts interpret them. So all this will get aired in court in due time. Meanwhile, it's not, IMO, anything extraordinary for the FBI to say "we're considering subpoeaning your records, so don't destroy them until the process works out." The SEC, for example, does this all the time with companies it is planning to investigate, and nobody turns a hair. In short, the author is getting all worked up way, way too soon. He needs to take a chill pill and wait until actual subpoenas arrive.

To: epicure who wrote (76160)	10/2/2003 6:40:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm not sure that journalist should get some extra protection that people in general don't get. I don't see why the notes of a journalist should get more protection then my private notes and communications. Of course saying that doesn't mean that I think journalist should get less protection then they currently get. It could also mean that I think they don't get more protection then most people do now (although in reality I expect that they do), or it could mean that I think that non-journalist should get the same extra protection that journalists get. I think special 1st amendment protections for journalists that are not given to people who have not published articles for pay would amount to making journalist a special protected class and clash with the idea of equal protection under the law. Edit - Chris seems to be effectively making a point that no 1st amendment protections are being violated either protections everyone gets or any possible special protection for journalists. Tim