Journalist's Contempt Charge Unsettles Fellow Reporters

[marmar]

from AP, via HuffPost:



Journalist's Contempt Charge Unsettles Fellow Reporters
JOHN DUNBAR | March 8, 2008 01:50 PM EST |

WASHINGTON — A judge is trying to bankrupt an ex-reporter with daily fines as much as $5,000 for refusing to disclose her sources for stories about the 2001 anthrax attacks, press advocates said Saturday.

They also said the case involving Toni Locy shows why Congress should pass a federal shield law for reporters.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Friday denied a request from Locy to stay payment of fines for a contempt citation pending an appeal and ruled she must "personally bear the responsibility of paying the fine the court imposed."

While at USA Today, Locy wrote about a former Army scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, whom the Justice Department identified in 2002 as a "person of interest" in the anthrax attacks. They killed five and sickened 17 others weeks after the terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001.

Hatfill has denied any involvement in the anthrax attacks and sued the government for violating his privacy by discussing the investigation with reporters. No one was charged in the attacks.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, said Walton appears to be trying to bankrupt Locy, a former Associated Press reporter who now is a professor at West Virginia University's journalism school.

"What he's doing is essentially saying, 'Toni Locy I am going to destroy your life'" she said. "This is just plain crazy. I know you're not supposed to call a federal judge arrogant, but this is arrogant."

The judge pointed to statements Hatfill's lawyers made in court papers in explaining his rationale. Hatfill's legal team said that while Locy's reporting was conducted "within the scope of her employment for USA Today, her contempt was not. It began long after she left the employment of USA Today." .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/08/journalists-contempt-cha_n_90556.html

[LiberalFighter]

1. He is one of those FISA judges too.

He sentenced Libby.
He dismissed Sibel Edmonds’ lawsuit against the Justice Department.


I wonder if Bush/Cheney got to him.

[Bandit]

2. So the Bush* Administration "Leaked" to this guy and the court wants to know who did the leaking.

I say there is no difference than that gal from the Times that was jailed for some time for not talking about the Bush* Cabal leaking Confidential information..This is National Security material here that was leaked by the Bush* Cabal and the reporter should be forced to say who gave the information. IMO

[MonkeyFunk]

3. I disagree with jailing reporters for contempt

I'm not even sure I'm comfortable with contempt being a crime in cases like this. Well, sure, make it a crime, but charge them and try them for it. No single judge should have the power to imprison someone and fine someone who hasn't had a trial.

[Bandit]

4. Hell just waterboard the reporter then..

When it comes to divulging National Security Secrets I don't think anyone should be exempt from having to testify. I understand the Bush* Cabal doesn't agree but then that doesn't surprise me in the slightest..

[musiclawyer]

5. Shield laws should be qualified

Just like qualified immunity. Qualified immunity will be a defense to local government officials if their agency did not have a policy of violating federal laws and it was not clear at the time that what they did was wrong. (simplistic explanation), But the shield laws should work basically the same way. If a reporter is told about a crime, there is no question about it being a crime, and the reporter would be a material witness, the reporter has to give up the source. Sorry.

Blanket shields laws are bad public policy,