Full Version: Journalists and Sources
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080310/....9MCs4YfyWs0NUE
Recently, USA Today printed a few editorials about a case where a Judge forced a Journalist to give up her sources in her reporting about the anthrax investigations back in 2001. According to the USA Today editorial, forcing Journalists to give up their sources to a judge would severely hamper journalism and would be an infringement on the 1st Amendment. And the Judge did not give the Journalist time to appeal her decision.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080310/...eZSO5iipYCs0NUE
Here's another editorial stating that Judges can force Journalists to give up their secret sources. If the sources broke the law by speaking to a newspaper, then the Judge probably should be allowed to force the journalist to come forward.
Now here's some background for the story. A man's public reputation got ruined because some people, who had access to classified information, decided to talk to the newspaper. The people who "leaked" the information broke the law in doing so. Because they broke the law by "leaking" the information under a veil of secrecy, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Would Journalism suffer from this ruling? Of course it will. But then of course, we don't need so much journalism. There's enough stories in the newspaper as it is. Sometimes, Journalists and Newspaper reporters should just keep their mouths closed.
So the question for debate is
Should a Judge be allowed to force Journalists to give up their sources?
Recently, USA Today printed a few editorials about a case where a Judge forced a Journalist to give up her sources in her reporting about the anthrax investigations back in 2001. According to the USA Today editorial, forcing Journalists to give up their sources to a judge would severely hamper journalism and would be an infringement on the 1st Amendment. And the Judge did not give the Journalist time to appeal her decision.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080310/...eZSO5iipYCs0NUE
Here's another editorial stating that Judges can force Journalists to give up their secret sources. If the sources broke the law by speaking to a newspaper, then the Judge probably should be allowed to force the journalist to come forward.
Now here's some background for the story. A man's public reputation got ruined because some people, who had access to classified information, decided to talk to the newspaper. The people who "leaked" the information broke the law in doing so. Because they broke the law by "leaking" the information under a veil of secrecy, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Would Journalism suffer from this ruling? Of course it will. But then of course, we don't need so much journalism. There's enough stories in the newspaper as it is. Sometimes, Journalists and Newspaper reporters should just keep their mouths closed.
So the question for debate is
Should a Judge be allowed to force Journalists to give up their sources?
Should a judge be allowed to force journalists to give up their sources?
Should a district judge? Yes. At least until a federal shield law is passed. I gotta say though, it's unfortunate the journalist who was subpoenaed in Hatfield's case isn't friends with George Bush. Then Judge Walton wouldn't have the balls to restrict her fundraising efforts to pay the fine and keep her sources confidential. And if Walton did, well, then the journalist could get her sentence commuted.
I hope his decision is overturned but the damage has been done.
Should a district judge? Yes. At least until a federal shield law is passed. I gotta say though, it's unfortunate the journalist who was subpoenaed in Hatfield's case isn't friends with George Bush. Then Judge Walton wouldn't have the balls to restrict her fundraising efforts to pay the fine and keep her sources confidential. And if Walton did, well, then the journalist could get her sentence commuted.
I hope his decision is overturned but the damage has been done.
I read it as relating to the civil case not the federal case. So i agree she should have to give up here sources.
“In Locy's case, the judge's aggressiveness is unnecessary. Hatfill already has the names of several sources, including Ashcroft, who gave information to the press.
The best solution is a federal "shield" law that would prohibit judges such as Walton from forcing journalists to reveal sources, except in rare cases, such as when it's vital to national security and can't be found via other means
“In Locy's case, the judge's aggressiveness is unnecessary. Hatfill already has the names of several sources, including Ashcroft, who gave information to the press.
The best solution is a federal "shield" law that would prohibit judges such as Walton from forcing journalists to reveal sources, except in rare cases, such as when it's vital to national security and can't be found via other means
It's important for all the sources to be revealed.
Hatfil's public reputation was destroyed because an anonymous source talked to a reporter. Since Hatfil was never brought to trial, we must presume that he is innocent in the anthrax attacks. Therefore, all the people who talked to the reporter and ruined an innocent person's reputation MUST be brought out of the closet so that they can be held responsible and punished. There must be deterrence against libel.
Hatfil's public reputation was destroyed because an anonymous source talked to a reporter. Since Hatfil was never brought to trial, we must presume that he is innocent in the anthrax attacks. Therefore, all the people who talked to the reporter and ruined an innocent person's reputation MUST be brought out of the closet so that they can be held responsible and punished. There must be deterrence against libel.
QUOTE(skeeterses @ Mar 12 2008, 07:49 AM) 
Hatfil's public reputation was destroyed because an anonymous source talked to a reporter. [...] There must be deterrence against libel.
If this was a libel suit Hatfill wouldn't need to out anonymous sources to sue the paper. It can't be a libel suit because Locy reported the truth, such as it was, from the Justice Department: Hatfill is a person of interest. Hatfill's lawsuit is based on the fed's Privacy Act.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.