« Misplaced Outrage Over Swift Vets | Main | Kerry's War Record »

August 13, 2004

1st Amendent For Me, But Not For Thee

WSJ OpinionToday observes with some amusement that the media have suddenly rediscovered the First Amendment:

Isn't it amazing what a raft of federal subpoenas will do to concentrate the media mind?
Back when columnist Robert Novak looked to be the main target of special federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, our professional press ethicists were tut-tutting about how they'd never "hide" behind journalistic privilege to abet a "crime." But now that a federal judge has held Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in contempt for refusing to tell a grand jury the sources for his own Valerie Plame story, suddenly the eyebrows furrow and talk turns to the threat to the First Amendment.
In recent decades we in the news business have depended less on legal privilege in protecting ourselves from being compelled to give up our sources than on a healthy recognition by most prosecutors that jailing reporters for standing on principle is not wise. What has been unleashed by the federal investigation into the Novak leak now threatens to alter that balance decisively. And those who only now decry the implications for First Amendment freedoms are coming very late to the game.

- Cassandra

August 13, 2004 at 07:53 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452b19169e200d8342e3cbb53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 1st Amendent For Me, But Not For Thee:

Comments

Even lawyers aren't allowed to hide behind privilege if the client communication was part of a crime or fraud (as opposed to a communication about it after the fact). I certainly don't think some two bit hack with a typewriter printing slanted half truths and mis-quotes ought to get more privilege than our esteemed legal counselors. Present company excluded;=)

Posted by: KJ at Aug 13, 2004 9:31:45 AM

As the InstaPundit has pointed out several times, it was absurd for the Press to keep harping on the story about who leaked Plume's identity when they knew the answer all along. Novak or any of the others who directly received the leaked info could've answered the question any time they wanted.

Posted by: Larry J at Aug 13, 2004 12:09:21 PM