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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (157452)	2/11/2006 8:11:53 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 793549

For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference They don't get it. They have no 1st Amendment protection for the confidentiality of their sources. This has only been repeated several times in the past 30 years. Derek

To: LindyBill who wrote (157452)	2/11/2006 8:48:35 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793549

Some media lawyers believe that The Times has powerful legal arguments in defense of its reporting and in protecting its sources. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who has represented publications like The Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, said, "There is a very strong argument that a federal common-law reporters' privilege exists and that privilege would protect confidential sources in this case. There is an extremely strong public interest in this information and the public has the right to understand this controversial and possibly unconstitutional public policy." Odd. I thought that issue was laid to rest in the Fitzgerald investigation of the Plame leak. There is no federal common law reporter's privilege. What am I missing here?