Judith Miller Asks That Journalists Be Exempt From the Law

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Judith Miller Calls for Federal Shield Law
Oct 18 8:44 PM US/Eastern
By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS

New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions.

Miller was jailed 85 days for refusing to testify about her conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff regarding undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame.

"Ultimately we protect sources so people will come forth _ so people will know," she told the national conference of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Miller received a standing ovation from more than half the crowd of about 350 journalists when she was presented with the group's First Amendment Award.

During a 12-minute speech, Miller defended her reporting and her decision to go to jail, saying she "could not risk a fishing expedition into all my intelligence sources."

"It is the freedom of people to talk to the press without getting in trouble, it is that right that's under assault today," she said.

Miller also participated in a panel discussion about whether reporters should be legally shielded from revealing confidential sources. The First Amendment does not protect reporters from grand jury subpoenas, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Panelist H. Josef Hebert, an Associated Press writer who was found in contempt of court for refusing to reveal a source in the espionage case of nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, said reporters should carefully grant confidentiality and stick to the pledge once given.

Hebert said Washington sources frequently want to comment without being identified, but "the truth is, we have to use this privilege less and less."

On Wednesday, Miller is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of a federal shield law, said Bruce Sanford, a First Amendment lawyer and counsel for SPJ.

Miller became a focus of the discussion about shield laws while fighting a special prosecutor's attempts to compel her to testify before a grand jury investigating the 2003 leak of Plame's identity.

Plame's name was first made public by columnist Robert Novak in July eight days after her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, published an op-ed piece in the Times saying the administration had manipulated prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs to justify going to war.

Miller, 57, never wrote a story about Plame, but was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify about her confidential sources.

She was released Sept. 29 after saying I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, had released her from her obligation to keep his name secret.

Miller said in her speech she did not feel comfortable that she had been released from her pledge of confidentiality until she heard from Libby personally.

Miller has since testified twice before the grand jury and said in a first-person account in the Times last weekend that in June and July of 2003 she discussed Wilson with Libby.

However, Miller said she could not remember who told her the name she wrote in her notebook as "Valerie Flame."

SPJ President Irwin Gratz, a radio producer for Maine Public Broadcasting in Portland, said 22 members of the society's board ratified the First Amendment Award on Saturday to recognize Miller's refusal to cooperate with prosecutors, her pursuit of the case to the Supreme Court and her willingness to go to jail.

"What she has done is shine a bright light on the need for a federal shield law," Gratz said.

One of Miller's colleagues at the Times said in a speech Tuesday to the New York City Bar Association that he didn't believe a shield law would necessarily have helped her case.

Reporter Adam Liptak said any privilege protecting the conversations journalists have with sources would likely be similar to the laws protecting the confidentiality of discussions between lawyers and their clients.

Those rules, he noted, are not protected if the client talks about participating in an illegal act, such as a government employee revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

In her speech, Miller dismissed criticism about her reporting and her case based on what she called "urban legends," "wild speculation" and "theories and rumors."

"I did not go to jail to protect wrongdoing. I did not go to jail to get a large book contract or to martyr myself," she said. "Anyone who thinks I would spend 85 days in jail as a canny career move knows nothing about jail and nothing about me."

Miller's appearance generated a range of comment.

"I was greatly reassured that she was acting in the best interest of journalists and the public," said Paul Simon, president of the Colorado professional chapter of SPJ and an editor at the Denver Post.

But Jason Jedlinski, 26, a producer with Fox News in Chicago, was looking for greater candor.

"She could have opened up a little more with a room full of colleagues," he said.

AP special correspondent Linda Deutsch, a longtime courts reporter in Los Angeles who also was to receive an SPJ award during the convention, said she fully supported Miller's defense of First Amendment principles.

"Anyone who goes to jail to protect my rights deserves my support," Deutsch said.

SPJ is an organization with about 9,700 television, radio, print and student members nationwide.

Link
 
Sorry, anyone who leaks classified information deserves jailtime. I feel no sorrow for Judith Miller who assisted the Bush administration by writing an article detailing Iraq's WMDs, then assisting with the retaliation of a whistle-blower who challenged the Bush administration's WMD claims.
 
>>If journalists can't protect their sources then we don't truly have a free press.
__________________

They can protect their sources, they just arent immune from any legal actions that may incur.

Its not like she was broken on the rack.
 
[quote name='Msut77']>>If journalists can't protect their sources then we don't truly have a free press.
__________________

They can protect their sources, they just arent immune from any legal actions that may incur.

Its not like she was broken on the rack.[/QUOTE]

Well I can threaten to kill the president, but I won't be immune from legal actions.

If a journalist can't protect their sources then people will be less likely to give information that benefits the public (ie. watergate), and journalists may think twice about whether they should report certain things that they have been told by sources.
 
The person who actually leaked the info to the journalist should be punished, but only if the info poses a legitimante threat to national security.
 
[quote name='evanft']The person who actually leaked the info to the journalist should be punished, but only if the info poses a legitimante threat to national security.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the journalist should not be forced to divulge that information. Think of the journalists who meet with taliban and Iraqi insurgents. That wouldn't be possible if we started forcing journalist to reveal their locations, and it would further endanger the lives of journalists in those areas.

The press should be designed to act as a messenger of the news, to explain situations and what is occuring. That ability will be forever damaged if those who speak to them know that they do so at their own peril.

Changing rules to out individual crimes could have dire effects on the press overall.
 
>>If a journalist can't protect their sources then people will be less likely to give information that benefits the public

To be fair this was about the outing of a CIA agent, and the adminitstration in power wanted to be anonymous.

Apples to Oranges.


BTW the way I understand it is being held in contempt of court.

If someone questioned woodward and he refused to play ball and was found in contempt then what can you say?

You do your time.

Freedom doesnt mean free from consequences.
 
[quote name='Msut77']>>If a journalist can't protect their sources then people will be less likely to give information that benefits the public

To be fair this was about the outing of a CIA agent, and the adminitstration in power wanted to be anonymous.

Apples to Oranges.


BTW the way I understand it is being held in contempt of court.

If someone questioned woodward and he refused to play ball and was found in contempt then what can you say?

You do your time.

Freedom doesnt mean free from consequences.[/QUOTE]

I did not say that this case benefits the public by keeping silent. But you can't individually change laws to suit particular cases. Sure you may benefit in individual instances, but the overal effects aren't desirable.

But, in terms of laws, freedom to do something does mean freedom from legal consequences. In countries with hate laws you're not free to, at least if you're a public figure, to publicly say that it was a good thing that the nazi's tried to wipe out all jews (as happened recently in canada). Now, no one's going to zip your mouth shut and prevent it, but you will likely be punished. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that legal action, but you would hardly consider that person free to behave that way.

How you can argue that you can simultaneously give the press freedom to protect their sources, and arrest them for doing so, is beyond me. If such a guarantee was not in place before, events like watergate may never have occured.
 
>>But you can't individually change laws to suit particular cases.

To my knowledge they didnt in this case, however what she seems to want and expect is freedom from said laws.

And lets just say we were talking about this specific case, then there wouldnt be much of a problem since it involves the outing of a CIA agent.

>>How you can argue that you can simultaneously give the press freedom to protect their sources, and arrest them for doing so, is beyond me.

Again, she was not broken on the rack. She does have the freedom to stay mum, that does not mean she has immunity from the law.

Like being a peaceful cival disobedient does not mean you are free from the law.

I am very Liberal, but I also care very much about the law and the Criminal Justice system.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
To my knowledge they didnt in this case, however what she seems to want and expect is freedom from said laws.

And lets just say we were talking about this specific case, then there wouldnt be much of a problem since it involves the outing of a CIA agent.[/quote]

This individual case isn't the issue, it's the effect that allowing it to occur in this instance will likely have for the overal freedom of the press. The majority of states have passed laws protecting the right of the press to protect sources, and many other courts have granted common law priveleges to that effect. Such a right is essential to have a fully free press. People will be less likely to talk and give information that could cost them their job or worse, unless they can be sure their name will not be revealed by the press. It won't matter whether the person talking has their own interests or the nations interests at heart, many won't take that risk.


Again, she was not broken on the rack. He does have the freedom to stay mum, that does not mean she has immunity from the law.

Like being a peaceful cival disobedient does not mean you are free from the law.

I am very Liberal, but I also care very much about the law and the Criminal Justice system.

I have the freedom to do pretty much anything I want then. Doctors have "freedom" to engage in assisted suicide, people have the "freedom" to rape, I have the "freedom" to run a hospital out of my basement. My point is, if you're going to end up arrested, then you don't really have that freedom. Sure, no ones chaining me to my bed to stop me, but that's hardly a freedom.

This strikes at the heart of what a free press really is. You have to take the good with the bad with freedoms, not everything goes your way. That's the whole point of freedom. Many freedoms can be used to facilitate crimes.

If I were running a newspaper, any reporter who gives their sources would be fired. The exception would be if express permission was granted by the source.
 
>>it's the effect that allowing it to occur in this instance will likely have for the overal freedom of the press

She just ignored the grand jury. Say for instance IF she went and for lack of a better term bullshit AND then got nailed maybe a case could be made that her rights are being squashed.

>>Many freedoms can be used to facilitate crimes.

And?

>>People will be less likely to talk and give information that could cost them their job or worse, unless they can be sure their name will not be revealed by the press

Fair enough, the reporter should do their time in club fed instead of squealing.

>>If I were running a newspaper, any reporter who gives their sources would be fired.

If I were running a paper I would not let the administration feed me bad info or use their anonymity to crimes, and if they did lie/break the law I wouldnt play ball anymore.

Bye bye anonymous sources.
 
There's one big problem with the very idea of Judy having protection as a journalist, which is that she never wrote a story. Its hard to claim 'freedom of the press' as a defense when you never actually printed anything in the first place. We may as well just give EVERYONE journalistic exception as long as they claim that they were maybe thinking about writing something someday.
 
[quote name='Drocket']There's one big problem with the very idea of Judy having protection as a journalist, which is that she never wrote a story. Its hard to claim 'freedom of the press' as a defense when you never actually printed anything in the first place. We may as well just give EVERYONE journalistic exception as long as they claim that they were maybe thinking about writing something someday.[/QUOTE]

Judith Miller is a pulitzer prize winning journalist. Many of here articles can be found here: link. She has writtent 1448 NYT articles. She may not have used that particular info in an article, but she was told the information as a journalist.

Fair enough, the reporter should do their time in club fed instead of squealing.

I think this is where the central disagreement is. You don't feel that being arrested restricts freedom. An absurd opinion as far as I'm concerned.

Bye bye anonymous sources.

Well, journalism isn't what it used to be anyway, might as well just finish it off.
 
Does freedom of speech give me the right to commit libel or slander? Does freedom of speech give me the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater? The answers should be "NO", just like the answer to whether someone can wittingly blow the cover of an undercover CIA agent.

The fact of the matter is that anonymous sources can and should exist for non-illegal tidbits of information. However, when someone knowingly and wittingly says something illegal, one must hold their source accountable.

Anyways, we should all know that saying "My anonymous source told me there was a fire in the theater" won't go over very well in court.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Does freedom of speech give me the right to commit libel or slander? Does freedom of speech give me the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater? The answers should be "NO", just like the answer to whether someone can wittingly blow the cover of an undercover CIA agent.

The fact of the matter is that anonymous sources can and should exist for non-illegal tidbits of information. However, when someone knowingly and wittingly says something illegal, one must hold their source accountable.

Anyways, we should all know that saying "My anonymous source told me there was a fire in the theater" won't go over very well in court.[/QUOTE]

If the press cannot protect their sources, then the freedom of the press is severely limited. You will severely limit the chances of people speaking about government corruption. If someone has reason to fear that it might be turned around and they will be exposed by the journalist, then they're unlikely to talk. The concept of the press is not a private citizen.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If the press cannot protect their sources, then the freedom of the press is severely limited. You will severely limit the chances of people speaking about government corruption. If someone has reason to fear that it might be turned around and they will be exposed by the journalist, then they're unlikely to talk. The concept of the press is not a private citizen.[/QUOTE]

If the information the source tells a journalist isn't illegal, what fear do they have?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']If the information the source tells a journalist isn't illegal, what fear do they have?[/QUOTE]

The risk of their identity being exposed would be there, however small, and would reduce the likelihood someone would tale about incidents such as high level corruption. It also makes it a possibility, meaning someone could be exposed and then it's found out there was no wrongdoing on their part.

Though that argument sounds dangerously familiar to the type used by proponants of increased surveilance.
 
>> You don't feel that being arrested restricts freedom.

This is not a case of "I dont like what you say zip it or the Gestapo crush your skull" she ignored a grand jury which asked her to testify she had info on the outing of a CIA agent.

>>An absurd opinion as far as I'm concerned.

Well thats great.

>>>You will severely limit the chances of people speaking about government corruption.

Assuming you arent letting out classified intel its not a crime to snitch.

Apples to Oranges.

And lets just say they find something to get you on and it is nice and legal then you do your time.
 
This is not a case of "I dont like what you say zip it or the Gestapo crush your skull" she ignored a grand jury which asked her to testify she had info on the outing of a CIA agent.

I think we see the press as two different things. I see it as a very different thing than the individual journalists. When a journalist is engaged in a conversation, she does not do so on her own behalf. She is there as an extension of the press and the media. It is at its most effective when its journalists can invterview any character (such as taliban and Iraqi insurgents, which have occured), and they will be more candid when they have assurances that their identity will remain anonymous.

There are laws and court decisions that have backed this view, to varying degrees. In this instance, the journalist is being viewed as simply another individual, not part of an essential institution in the democratic process.

This is not a case of "I dont like what you say zip it or the Gestapo crush your skull" she ignored a grand jury which asked her to testify she had info on the outing of a CIA agent.

They're not all powerful. For example, a child cannot be forced to testify against their parents.

She's part of an institution that has special rights, granted varying by state, since it is essential to the democratic process.

Assuming you arent letting out classified intel its not a crime to snitch.

But there are a plethora of reasons why someone would not want their identity revealed, and would balk at giving out information unless their anonymity could be assured.
 
>>But there are a plethora of reasons why someone would not want their identity revealed

Yep, but how many concern breaking the law and putting peoples life in danger?

Again what exactly would make you think I care about a child testifying against his parents?
 
[quote name='Msut77']>>But there are a plethora of reasons why someone would not want their identity revealed

Yep, but how many concern breaking the law and putting peoples life in danger?[/quote]

You take the good with the bad. All important freedoms have their downside.


Again what exactly would make you think I care about a child testifying against his parents?

Your keep arguing a grand jury requested it. That isn't the only thing that matters. But what would you think if the child knew their father killed 3 people, and the case depended on the child to testify? That's how I see this. It's unfortunate, but, just like the usually accepted right to protect their sources, you cannot change everything to prevent a few unfortunate outcomes.
 
>>You take the good with the bad. All important freedoms have their downside.

Thats cute, but it is a worthless statement.

>>Your keep arguing a grand jury requested it.

Thing is the question isnt even if she bullshit or lied to the grand jury, she blew them off.

However were you aware that she was known as "Miss Run Amok" in fact sh called herself that. She meant she could do whatever she wanted.

And the source(s) seem to be Scooter Libby/Rove and they did it to get EVEN with a whistleblower. Think about it, the administration wanted anonymity they did not deserve.

As of right now if all you have are what ifs and reductio ad absurdum I am content to declare victory and go to sleep.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You take the good with the bad. All important freedoms have their downside.[/QUOTE]
This brings us back to the previously given 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' example. Its not covered by freedom of speech, and quite rightly so. Its entirely possible to have rights with limits. Although protecting reporter's sources is a good thing in general, it doesn't mean that ALL sources should always be protected under any circumstances.

In a purely hypothetical scenario, lets just say that a high-ranking government official committed treason by deliberately blowing an undercover agent's cover during a time of war as political payback for a close relative revealing that the government was lying throught its teeth in order to mislead the nation into the previously mentioned war... Wait, never mind, bad example.
 
[quote name='Msut77']>>You take the good with the bad. All important freedoms have their downside.

Thats cute, but it is a worthless statement.

>>Your keep arguing a grand jury requested it.

Thing is the question isnt even if she bullshit or lied to the grand jury, she blew them off.

However were you aware that she was known as "Miss Run Amok" in fact sh called herself that. She meant she could do whatever she wanted.

And the source(s) seem to be Scooter Libby/Rove and they did it to get EVEN with a whistleblower. Think about it, the administration wanted anonymity they did not deserve.

As of right now if all you have are what ifs and reductio ad absurdum I am content to declare victory and go to sleep.[/QUOTE]

Fine, you have your final argument, I'll have mine. All you keep doing is saying "the source committed a crime!" and "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to hide". You donot take into account any effects lessening freedom of the press has. You appear to only be considering this individual case, as if it exists in a vacuum. That first quoted statement is not just cute, it's obvious. Whether it's a valid conern or not has been ignored by you, and it seems to be a concept you do not understand. There is a more important issue here than an individual crime that may or may not have been committed by a bush administration member. Agreeing with me isn't the point, you seem to consistently sidestep the effect it may or may not have on the overal freedom of the press, or even if that is a real concern to you.

While not the case with everyone, much of the outcry seems politically motivated. If they were going after clinton administration, I strongly believe many liberals would see it differently. Just as conservatives scream about the use of indictments as the democrats attempt to take down the bush administration, they attempted the same thing under the clinton administration. Now liberals, the great upholders of the freedom of the press, are attacking it when it turns on them. I think it's hypocritical, not in every individuals case, but more often than not. I'm not saying people don't genuinely believe that, but I think many of their opinions are being decided, subconsciously or not, by party affiliation.

And for the life of me I can't understand how you can argue we have a freedom to commit an act, even though that act will result in arrest. Unless you want to argue it in terms of free will, that doesn't make sense.

This brings us back to the previously given 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' example. Its not covered by freedom of speech, and quite rightly so. Its entirely possible to have rights with limits. Although protecting reporter's sources is a good thing in general, it doesn't mean that ALL sources should always be protected under any circumstances.

I have no problem with that. Generally, the press operates as if that is a guarantee. I agree with that opinion, and would like to see it made into a federal law.

I think that the freedom of the press is so important that sources must be kept anonymous if desired by that source. If you want to go after a journalist for behaving in an illegal way with information they have recieved, or for participating in a crime in order to gain access (ie. interviewing taliban militants should not be a crime, but being present for an attack could be), then go right ahead. That may be unfortunate in some cases, particularly if they accidentaly divulge sensitive information. But, I do not see it as having the same effect on press freedom as if you were to actually force them to reveal the source and then go after the source.
 
bread's done
Back
Top