Marc, just to bring you up to date…Chinese have more than Peking Review available for reading…:

http://www.nanfangdaily.com.cn/southnews/

And of course I immediately (and obediently) went and signed the petition. That’s the good news. The bad news is I’d already signed it a month ago, a middle-aged brain-freeze-related fact I failed to catch until I saw myself listed twice. Oh, well.

–I’d have thought you would have wanted the people who outed Plame identified.

–Dr. Lee appears to have got a raw deal, he was accused of espionage, but the charges were dropped, and apparently the DOE and DOJ tried to smear him.

–What public interest was being served by Taricani broadcasting that video?

–In the Global Relief case, again what public interest is being served?

–In the Balco case, again, what public interest was served by the publishing of documents the court said were confidential?

Please explain what’s going on in these cases. I’m not seeing it.

The Lynne Stewart case seems obvious. One reporter has successfully argued her point, so it should work for the rest of them.

I won’t even debate the substance of the other cases with you because they are irrelevant. The public interest resides in the very principle of the reporter’s shield. No matter how trivial or not one case is, the legal principle must stand that a reporter can guarantee anonymity. If that principle is overturned by the courts then when the really important cases come up — the ones you deem worthy– the protection will not be there. By the way, unless you have worked as a reporter is it likely you have no concept of how just how much of the news you take for granted can be gathered thanks to this principle. The moment it becomes a fact that the confidentiality of sources will not be guaranteed, all bets are off.

I find it quite amusing btw hat you are willing to countenance all sorts of shortcuts and extraordinary powers and privileges for police officials and the federal government but you are reluctant to grant the basic shield for reporters upon whom the citizenry relies for information.

Of course in authoritarian systems, reporters have no such privilege. And the public can rely on the word of government officials. I’ll pass on that thank you very much.

(Even though, okay, yes, my mean girl inner adolescent wouldn’t re-e-e-ally mind having Judith Miller do a teensy weensy bit of jail time.)

Marc, thanks, m’dear, and yes. Next up.

Reporters cannot be prosecuted for what they write. They can only be prosecuted for refusing to answer questions that other citizens are required to answer.

I know that reporters think that they are special and walk on a higher plane, but that is not Constitutionally the case.

That being said, the ability to shield sources is sometimes important to the public. But an absolute ability to shield sources can result in important failures of justice. Furthermore, given the often nefarious motives of leakers, I don’t think absolute protection of them is warranted.

Who leaked to Novak about Valerie Plame? Why don’t we just lock up Novak until he spills the beans? If I had that information, that’s what would happen to me.

If you want reporters to be shielded, go for legislation. Let the citizens who will supposedly benefit have a say in this. Create a situation where a law exists that creates a presumption, and courts can determine individual cases.

“The public interest resides in the very principle of the reporter’s shield. No matter how trivial or not one case is, the legal principle must stand that a reporter can guarantee anonymity.”

This implies to me that reporters get to ignore court orders and stuff at will. They get to operate outside the law. They do not have to obey the courts like other citizens are required.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Are you also implying that this “reporter’s shield” cannot be abused by reporters?

What if Plame had been overseas, and her cover blown and was assassinated for being a CIA agent. Now what?

http://www.harpers.org/BeyondFallujah.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20041119/ap_on_go_co/reporters_sources_1&printer=1

Once the court orders this, folks need to obey it. This is known as “rule of law”, and is an even higher, and more important, principle than confedentiality of a reporter’s sources. Which IS a high and important principle, too.

The focus of the outrage should be on the court order — why did the court censor this? What is the court’s reasoning? If, as seems likely, such censorship reasoning is faulty, what is the way to repair it?

It is absolutely certain that gov’t officials are taking bribes, so there needs to be a system of checks on this illegal misbehavior. On ALL gov’t misbehavior. I’m pretty sure current whistleblower protection is less adequate than is optimal.

Just like in the UNSCAM oil-for-palace crap, what serves society best is almost always MORE public information about the truth. I want only very limited confidentiality of “truth”, like videotapes, being allowed to stand. I strongly suspect the judges order is wrong.

Once the judge gives the order, that’s the way it goes. Marc, perhaps if you think about your outrage, vs. pro-life outrage of judges accepting legal abortion, it provides interesting views on the feelings AGAINST any system of injustice.

I think Harry Potter books are wonderful in creating realistic, unjust situtations. Injustice creates intense emotions.

For the record, I am NOT outraged. As I said in the post, I am concerned, very concerned.

I also continue to be amused, Tom and John, by the hypocrisy of certain conservatives who I will not name (but of the shoe fits). Funny isnt it how some of you are so quick to side with the “rights” of big government over that of the citizens’ right to know? Be careful, for the rights you disdain are also yours.

To you John, it seems you are quick to accuse lowly reporters of wanting special rights– but you are blithe to grant special powers to much more powerful and intrusive cops and prosecutors. That’s the wrong side of the slope to be on.

On these isues, my friends, I am quite comfortable siding not only with the ACLU but also with authentic Conservatives like Bob Barr and Dick Armey who take the principles of freedom dead seriosuly and are loathe to be stampeded — even during a war — to expand the powers of the state.

Where’s John Galt when you need him?

That’s bizarre, you’re for putting women in jail for having abortions? A whole lot of taxation of the rich will be necessary before you could pay for all the jails full of good christian women and their doctors, nurses,…

In an attempt to find the perpetrator, the Judge has a right to find out who released it to the public by demanded to know who had access to it, doesn’t he?

Today Reporters Without Borders is marking the fifteenth International Jailed Journalists Support Day:Reporters Without Borders dedicates its 15th annual Jailed Journalists Support Day to the two kidnapped French journalists in Iraq. It is campaigning…