White House recommends veto of 'shield law'

Oh! My! God!

I am aware that there is debate on whether this "shield law" is necessary as it stands or needs adjustment, but as long as the "White House" (read: Cheney/Bush) continues to claim that "national security" should override free speech and freedom of the press, we are all in deep doo-doo!

History has shown time and time again that those who attempt to muzzle free speech are the very one's who have the most to hide.

"BUSH DECLARES IMMINENT DOMAIN ON ALL JOURNALIST IN AMERICA"

So Great Poppy may instill his last media rights and continue to suppress anything relating to media coverage of the Iraq War, Occupation, British Petroleum, Halliburton, Blackwater Oil Reconciliation. God forbid if a journalist could print real news, instead of censored news or no news at all.

I'm sure journalist in america would love to STOP COVERING OJ SIMPSON, AND BRITNEY SPEARS, OR LINDSEY LOHAN OR PARIS HILTON or T.I. OR MICHAEL VIC.

THE GOP SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEIR MASTER AS he doesn't even let them go outside to play.

OH GREAT BIG POPPY, WALTER KRONKITE didn't write your 9/11 speech at 8am or 8:15, or 8:30 or 6am Eastern Standard Time, someone from Regents University did the night before REMEMBER!

"White House Recommends Veto Of 'Shield Law'?
http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa293%2FGoch%2FGif%2F1184476126824.gif&searchTerm=same%20shit%20different%20asshole&pageOffset=18

In the Neocon world freedom of speech and freedom of the press are things of the past...unless you're good little fascists like Fox Noise Channel and Rush Limpdong.

How much time does this little Republican dictator have left?
http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Great job GOP - you're undoubtedly making the greatest effort in history at stifling the current, relative state of free speech in America.

Yay for Authoritarianism.

I wonder how Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, or Mussolini would view a "shield law" for journalists. Bush/Cheney... cut from the same cloth of these monsters.

I love it when the Lefties come out in favor of special legal rights for some Americans--in this case, journalists--but not others. Exactly the sort of "above the law" special rights that is contrary to everything America stands for.

And then they try and cover up their hypocrisy by screaming about how Pres. Bush is Hitler/Stalin/Attila the Hun.

These psychotic people prevent any mature or intelligent discussion of so-called "shield" laws--laws which the U.S. has done very well without for the last 220 years.

"Mmmmmmfffmmmfm!"

The sound of the Free Press after being muzzled by the Cheney Whitehouse.

The White House is correct.Why should sources be confidential.When in court the reporters should want to "TELL ALL"

The WH may just want to be careful what it asks for...It just may get it!

I love it when the Lefties come out in favor of special legal rights for some Americans--in this case, journalists--but not others. Exactly the sort of "above the law" special rights that is contrary to everything America stands for.

Posted by: Bruce | October 16, 2007 2:11 PM

You mean "special legal rights" like freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

Yeah, who needs them?

You would have made for a fine "brown shirt", Brucie.

Well, Bruce, surely you recall that the first thing dictators like Hitler and Stalin did was to muzzle the press. Dictators do not like it when the peons hear the truth about what is going on.

On the other hand, compelling reporters to testify would have saved a lot of taxpayer dollars and time during the Valerie Plame investigation. Addington and Scooter would have been ousted without much ado.

Oh no, we wouldn't want to place any unnecessary burden like warrants, Habeas Corpus, or other Constitutional restrictions on the executive branch. As for nosy reporters and their traitorous sources, rendition and waterboarding should settle their hash, right Georgie?

"I love it when the Lefties come out in favor of special legal rights for some Americans--in this case, journalists--but not others. Exactly the sort of "above the law" special rights that is contrary to everything America stands for."

You mean "lefties" like Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, et al....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yep, the Press does have special protections, just like religious groups. Not above the law, within the law.

Bruce,
Are interrogators "above the law" when they torture some and not others? Seems like you just made an argument against yourself. Good job.

Uh, Bruce,

For someone who rants about this blog site obfuscating the truth, you're doing some pretty fair mud-slinging yourself there.

And since Brucie relishes "the truth" so much, here's some food for thought (or is the ABA too "leftie" for ya, Brucie?)

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION submitted to the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE on the subject of REPORTERS’ PRIVILEGE LEGISLATION OCTOBER 19, 2005

The American Bar Association appreciates the opportunity to present this written statement for the hearing record of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary regarding the need for enactment of a federal shield law for journalists. Because events of the past year have clearly demonstrated the need for federal legislation, the Association recently adopted policy urging Congress to enact legislation to confer a qualified privilege on journalists Our policy, which sets forth reasonable standards for the issuance of subpoenas to journalists compelling disclosure of the names of their sources and information collected in the course of their work, endorses in principle S. 1419 (and its House counterpart, H.R. 3323), legislation currently under consideration by this Committee.

The purpose of shield laws is to enable reporters to obtain information that would not otherwise be forthcoming and to facilitate independent, objective investigations on behalf of the public. Such investigations uncover significant information about government, business and other aspects of daily commerce that is vital for an informed democracy. In order to balance the public’s need for information with the fair administration of justice, the ABA policy, adopted August 2005, states that Congress should enact a federal shield law that would require any party seeking to subpoena a journalist to disclose information to demonstrate that: 1. the information sought is essential to a critical issue in the matter; 2. all reasonable alternative sources for acquiring the information have been exhausted; and 3. the need for the information clearly outweighs the public interest in protecting the free flow of information. The policy further states that a “federal shield law should apply to journalists who disseminate information by print, photographic, broadcast, cable, satellite, electronic, mechanical or any other media through newspaper book, magazine, periodical, radio, TV, programming service, channel, network, new agency or wire service or similar service.” So-called “bloggers” and other individuals who post information on the Internet for public dissemination are not covered by this definition. Our policy, therefore, endorses a qualified federal privilege that protects both the
identity of a journalist’s confidential sources and work products and recommends baseline standards for the issuance of subpoenas in both criminal and civil matters. We would oppose any federal shield law proposal that doesn’t meet these minimum standards. Currently, 49 states and the District of Columbia recognize a privilege for journalists to protect their sources -- 18 by judicial decisions, the rest by enactment of shield statutes. Thirteen states recognize an absolute privilege for reporters to protect their sources. Regrettably, when a reporter relies upon a state law and enters into an agreement of confidentiality with a source, the state law will not shield him or her from compelled disclosure if the matter becomes relevant to a federal lawsuit or investigation because federal courts do not give any weight to state law in non-diversity matters. Lacking clear federal precedent or statutory guidance, many federal courts have issued decisions that have provided very limited to no protection for subpoenaed journalists. A reporter who promises confidentiality to a source in order to acquire information that would otherwise be unavailable and who relies on state law to make such an agreement should not be put at professional and possibly personal peril if the reporter later is subpoenaed in a federal case where no similar protections are afforded. There has been great confusion over whether and to what extent the federal courts recognize a reporter’s privilege because federal courts in different jurisdictions have applied the law differently ever since 1972, when the United States Supreme Court decided Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, which combined three cases where reporters had refused to identify confidential matters to a grand jury. The court, in a 5-4 decision, said that reporters and other journalists did not have a First Amendment testimonial privilege against compelled disclosure of their sources. The Court, however, opened the door a bit by stating that a bad faith harassment exception might violate the First Amendment. In a concurring opinion that turned out to read more like a dissenting opinion, Justice Powell seized on this statement and expanded its implications by stating that a reporter who thinks his testimony implicates confidential sources without a legitimate need of law enforcement could move to quash the subpoena; and the judge who hears the motion must balance the competing interests on the merits. Federal courts differ significantly in their interpretation of the scope of the privilege and its application in civil and criminal contexts. Even the Supreme Court has sent mixed signals over the meaning of Branzburg. Recently, however, more and more federal courts have refused to recognize a reporter’s First Amendment privilege. Most notably, earlier this year, in affirming the district court’s contempt order requiring the incarceration of Judith Miller, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that there is no First Amendment reporter’s privilege and that a common law privilege, if it in fact exists, is not absolute. In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, No. 04-3138. Clearly, neither federal court decisions nor the Department of Justice Guidelines for Issuance of Subpoenas to News Media, 28 C.F.R Sec. 5010, 2005 (which apply only to criminal investigations and are not binding on the courts) are sufficient to establish a definitive, uniformly applied federal standard. In recent years, prosecutors and other litigants around the country have pursued reporters zealously in an effort to learn the identity of their confidential sources and obtain unpublished information. News media leaders have warned Members of Congress and the public that many in the industry have reached the point where the absence of a clearly defined federal reporters’ privilege is affecting their editorial decisions, which in turn affects the free flow in information to the public. Others have echoed the same or similar concerns. According to the written statement of Leo Levin (a past chair of the ABA Forum Committee on Communications Law who was speaking in his individual capacity) submitted to your Committee on July 20 during the first hearing on this subject, for almost three decades after Branzburg, subpoenas issued to reporters by federal courts were exceedingly rare. That has now changed. Mr. Levin said that three federal proceeding in Washington DC alone have generated subpoenas seeking confidential sources to approximately two dozen reporters and news agencies, seven of whom have
been held in contempt in less than a year. Floyd Abrams, attorney for Judith Miller, stated in testimony before this committee: “We have a genuine crisis before us. In the last year and a half, more than 70 journalists and news organizations have been embroiled in disputes with federal prosecutors and other litigants seeking to discover unpublished information; dozens have been asked to reveal their sources.” Only two subpoenas seeking confidential source identities were issued between 1976 and 2000 and all three were quashed. In the last four years, three federal courts have affirmed contempt citations in grand jury proceedings. Penalties have been far more severe than in most past cases. For example, in 2001, Vanessa Legett served six months in jail for refusing to disclose the identity of a source in a murder; earlier this year, James Taricani, completed a four-month sentence for refusing to identify the source that provided him with a videotape of alleged corruption by public officials in Rhode Island; and most recently, Judith Miller was sent to jail for 85 days for refusing to disclose her source regarding the Valerie Plame investigation. In addition, a disturbing new trend involves the issuance of subpoenas in private litigation such as those issued in cases relating to the investigations of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, the scientist at Los Alamos Nuclear laboratories and Dr. Steven Hatfell, who was accused of involvement in the anthrax outbreak. As stated at the beginning of this statement, the Association endorses in principle S. 1419. This legislation, as amended, requires that in order to compel a reporter to testify or produce documents in civil proceedings, a court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, after providing a notice and opportunity to be heard to the covered person, that the testimony and/or documents are essential to a dispositive issue of substantial importance. In criminal proceedings, a court also needs to establish that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred. The legislation responds to the legitimate concerns law enforcement by establishing a national security exception for the identity of sources: in situations where compelled testimony or document could reveal the identity of source or include information that could reasonably be expected to lead to revelation, the disclosure of the source must be necessary to prevent imminent and
actual harm to national security; compelled disclosure would prevent such harm, and the harm clearly outweighs the public’s interest in the free flow of information. Given the new developments in the investigation of the Valerie Plame unfolding on the heels of Judith Miller’s testimony regarding her sources and work products before the grand jury, it is important to point out that adoption of legislation such as S. 1419, would NOT have changed the outcome for Ms. Miller. She still would have been held in contempt of court for her refusal to testify because the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in addition to holding that there is no First Amendment privilege protecting journalists from disclosing sources before a grand jury, stated that even if a common law privilege exists, it had been overcome in her case by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald meeting the burden of showing that the information sought was “critical and unobtainable from any other source.” There is a ressing need for Congressional action. Even the courts have urged Congress to take the lead and enact a federal shield law. We are grateful that your Committee has initiated the process by holding these hearings. ************************************

A bit difficult to read (damn merge fields), but at least a decent summation of the issue at hand.

The floor is now open for "mature or intelligent discussion". Brucie? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

""The administration believes strongly in the importance and rights of a free press; however, based on the overriding imperative to protect national security, the administration strongly opposes H.R. 2102."

This has been the rationale' of every tyrant since Tiberius.

Sorry if I said it before; America, you willingly jumped off the cliff in November 04.

'Taint gonna be easy gettin' our freedom back.

"I love it when the Lefties come out in favor of special legal rights for some Americans--in this case, journalists--but not others. Exactly the sort of "above the law" special rights that is contrary to everything America stands for.

Posted by: Bruce | October 16, 2007 2:11 PM"

The press, like the church was wisely given special treatment by the founders.

It was understood by these good fellows that the press and religion could not be allowed to be controlled or promoted by politically motivated parties or governments.

It's really that simple.

Unfortunately, Bruce and others fail to apprehend this wisdom.

pearlywhite,
Its a mixed bag: I think a free press, and a free blogasphere are needed to inform and protect us. However, I don't want someone like Judy Miller protected more- if many of the stories she wrote helped to lead, or, lie us into war. Also, it would be nice to know some of the sources Fox News cites at times. Another thought is that we seem to have many laws on the books in the U.S. that are not enforced correctly- or at all. Then, people think the laws do not exist- that we need to legislate more. (Thinking of immigration laws here- we would not be discussing "comprehensive immigration law" if the laws, initially, about legally getting into our country were followed). Lastly, BushCo may not want another (Dem) administration, and their downstream sources, protected for doing the same things Bush/Cheny and aides did- and, so far, seem to have gotten away with.

What a bunch of great guys this Bush administration is. Bush will veto a medical bill for 10 million children, and oppose a shield law. Which is a direct attack on our freedoms.
Even reichwinger John D. seems speechless!
Orin Hatch, not really a socialist is on the podium with Pelosi and Paul Simon against this (his) administration abhorrent governing.
Either one of just these 2 things is about 10.000 times worse than Bill's worst folly.
What a disaster!

pearlywhite and c morris are spot on.

and brucebot is actually an attorney, just like george w bush is a harvard grad.