| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: WoT | ||
| Judge Finds Post WaPo Reporter in Contempt | ||
| 2005-11-17 | ||
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said that "in order to avoid a repetition of the Judith Miller imbroglio," Pincus must contact his sources to inform them of the court's order in case they wish to release him from his pledge of confidentiality. The ruling is the latest example of court-ordered pressure on journalists to reveal their confidential sources. Relying on anonymous sources, Pincus and reporters for other news organizations in 1999 identified Lee as the focus of a criminal investigation into the possible theft of nuclear secrets on behalf of China. Never charged with espionage and eventually allowed to plead guilty to a single count of mishandling computer files, Lee is seeking the identity of the reporters' sources for his lawsuit against the departments of Energy and Justice. Lee says the government improperly disclosed personal information about him in violation of the Privacy Act. "The transcendent importance of a free press is that reporters can report the news and express opinions without fear of government oppression or interference," Collyer wrote. "The right to keep confidential an anonymous source is not 'transcendent' in the same sense; this is clear because the privilege is qualified even under the stirring language of the Constitution." This month, a federal appeals court rejected four journalists' appeal of a judge's order directing them to testify about their confidential sources in the Lee case. The reporters are H. Josef Hebert of The Associated Press, James Risen of The New York Times, Robert Drogin of the Los Angeles Times and Pierre Thomas, formerly of CNN and now of ABC. "Mr. Pincus is no less important as a potential witness concerning government leaks than the journalists from other media outlets, and the court finds no basis to reach a different decision concerning him."
| ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 So, he is protecting a source in re: a Chinese spy, and will spend jail time for not talking... He should reconsider... If the situation was reversed... Chinese Punishment : Bullet to the back of the head in the middle of a packed soccer stadium. He is lucky he is here... US Punishment : Cozy cell. 3-meals a day. Friendly 300-lb "Bubba" ready & willing to give him a daily "massage". So, he should consider talking anyway... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-11-17 15:04 |
| #6 Ultimately the Constitution is suppose the protect the life and liberty of the individual citizen. When the pursuit of profits by rich entertainment media corporations trash the rights of the individual to his fundamental protection of a fair trial and due process as specifically written in that Constitution, its time those who played hot and fast over those rights pay the piper. They appear to miss out on who really was the 'victim' here. And it ain't the reporters. |
| Posted by: Snineper Hupereck1825 2005-11-17 12:23 |
| #5 Or filibusters or privacy or... |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-17 12:16 |
| #4 "The transcendent importance of a free press is that reporters can report the news and express opinions without fear of government oppression or interference," Collyer wrote. "The right to keep confidential an anonymous source is not 'transcendent' in the same sense; this is clear because the privilege is qualified even under the stirring language of the Constitution." Weirdest thing. I can't find ANY language in the Constitution -- stirring or otherwise -- that grants journalists any privileges at all. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-17 12:08 |
| #3 Sorry, Walt. I don't seemed to recollect knowing you. |
| Posted by: Bob Woodward 2005-11-17 12:06 |
| #2 Help! Help! I'm being repressed! |
| Posted by: Walter Pincus 2005-11-17 12:04 |
| #1 Bob! Help me Bob! |
| Posted by: Walter Pincus 2005-11-17 11:31 |