Reporters urge high court to consider confidential-sources case

[deminks]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16400

WASHINGTON — Three journalists asked the Supreme Court yesterday to block an order requiring them to reveal confidential sources in their reporting on a criminal probe of a nuclear scientist.

If justices accept it, the case sets the stage for a landmark free-speech ruling at a time reporters are under increasing pressure to break source confidentiality pledges — or risk jail time and huge fines.

"The issues presented here go to the heart of the press's function in a democracy," justices were told in an appeal filed yesterday by lawyers for H. Josef Hebert of the Associated Press, James Risen of The New York Times and Robert Drogin of the Los Angeles Times.

The three reporters have been held in contempt of court for refusing to divulge the identify of sources for stories about Wen Ho Lee, who in 1999 was suspected of spying while he worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. In November 2005, the full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia refused to grant a re-hearing on the contempt charge.

(end snip)

While I still feel that reporters sources should remain confidential the majority of the time, if the source commits a crime by revealing information or making threats to another person, I do not feel that the shield should remain in effect for reporters or anyone else. IMHO.


From the same site, here is a good summary of the cases still pending. Please note that Judith Miller is involved in two of them. The other one gets passed over a lot. It involves Miller and another reporter tipping off charities that were being investigated by Fitzpatrick shortly after 911 that a raid was going to take place. Fitz wants to know who told Miller. Again, was the source committing a crime by telling Miller, and should the shield still apply?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=15634