Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen threatened with jail time re: confidential sources [View all]Scuba
(53,475 posts)6. From the article ...
Compelling journalists to testify about their conversations with confidential sources will inevitably hinder future attempts to obtain cooperation from those or other confidential sources. It creates the inevitable appearance that journalists either are or can be readily converted into an investigative arm of the government. This would seriously compromise journalists integrity and independence.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen threatened with jail time re: confidential sources [View all]
marmar
May 2014
OP
So tell us why Judith Miller shouldn't have gone to jail? We should be consistent on DU. nt
msanthrope
May 2014
#4
Why should Judith Miller and James Risen not be compelled to testify against criminals? nt
msanthrope
May 2014
#5
That was Miller's argument, trying to shield Scooter Libby...and doesn't answer my
msanthrope
May 2014
#7
It's not about shielding the criminal it's about protecting the free press's ability to investigate.
Scuba
May 2014
#8
1st, you are arguing for a 1stA right that doesn't exist. 2nd, you are arguing against the 6thA
msanthrope
May 2014
#9
I didn't argue either of the things you claimed I did. Take your strawman elsewhere.
Scuba
May 2014
#12
Actually, that is precisely the point of the cite you used. Risen is arguing
msanthrope
May 2014
#14
It's basic criminal procedure....when you carve out a privilege, it generally fetters the rights of
msanthrope
May 2014
#18
So, your argument in defense of reporter's privilege is not based on the 1st amendment?
malthaussen
May 2014
#61
When you accused me of a strawman, as opposed to agreeing that I had correctly
msanthrope
May 2014
#71
Is your argument the first amendment? If it is, then I didn't raise a strawman, but correctly
msanthrope
May 2014
#73
I have no clue why you think the "anti-confrontation clause" would have any relavence. Anything ...
Scuba
May 2014
#77
Well, I grant that you may be unfamiliar with the interplay of rights and privileges with regard to
msanthrope
May 2014
#87
What? How does the 6th amendment not apply in the criminal case against Sterling? nt
msanthrope
May 2014
#15
There is no shield law. The extant case is a criminal one, US v. Sterling in which Mr. Risen
msanthrope
May 2014
#20
My alternative is to leave the law as it is, as I take a dim view on privilege. Yeah--I'm satisfied
msanthrope
May 2014
#39
I don't worry about this one, because although we don't have it, it doesn't stop the flow
msanthrope
May 2014
#56
Indeed--it's an interesting day when the "true" progressives are backing a Fox reporter who wishes
msanthrope
May 2014
#52
How is Jeffrey Sterling a whistleblower? He didn't reveal any abuse of power, or anything else.
msanthrope
May 2014
#25
Another attack on journalists and whistle blowers. And why would this democratic administration
sabrina 1
May 2014
#21
Jeffrey Sterling is not a whistleblower. In fact, here's his indictment--tell us all what
msanthrope
May 2014
#26
“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliff
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2014
#23
This is what we get for backing a smooth-talking, glass-ceiling-breaking, guy-who-can-win
FiveGoodMen
May 2014
#27
Kindly read Mr. Sterling's indictment, and tell us all why he should not be prosecuted.
msanthrope
May 2014
#29
I'm still waiting for someone to read Sterling's indictment and tell me the whistleblowing activity.
msanthrope
May 2014
#31
Sadly I do not. Don't you have some kale to attend to? Thank you for calling my an angel though
uppityperson
May 2014
#37
Since she talked to me, does that mean I am an angel? Maybe you'll get a chance to be talked to to.
uppityperson
May 2014
#38
back to talking to the angels again, ms vermin (to copy/paste from your deleted post)
uppityperson
May 2014
#82
I am enjoying being able to welcome newbies, being just a general DUer again.
uppityperson
May 2014
#53
do you think he helped with a crime? serious question, as i have not followed this case.
dionysus
May 2014
#67
He defintely helped Sterling commit crime. What he did not do, however was commit a crime for
msanthrope
May 2014
#74
Given the hatchet job he did against Wen Ho Lee, and his subsequent employment at Fox, he's pretty
msanthrope
May 2014
#88
The point is he did read the details...and some of us remember the hatchet job this Fox reporter
msanthrope
May 2014
#89
It's the only move consistent with the law. The Bush DOJ kicked the can down the road, and
msanthrope
May 2014
#68