General Discussion

malthaussen

(18,581 posts)

22. I use shield "law" colloquially, of course.

Thu May 8, 2014, 11:28 AM

May 2014

I'm not sure why you are "sorry" about your opinion. Perhaps you were using that word colloquially, too.

I don't think it comes down to individual rights, however. Well, in exercise, obviously it does. But the question of confidentiality is more about encouraging potential informants to feel relatively secure in exposing abuses of authority. How much personal courage do you insist on, in the cases of a journalist willingly facing contempt charges, or a potential whistleblower facing exposure? Those who abuse authority will surely abuse it to harm those who expose them. Still, one might reasonably wish that, in the hypothetical you discuss elsewhere, there were some mechanism to relieve the accused. But that doesn't apply to the case under discussion.

As for the consistency question, I wasn't around DU at the time of the Miller controversy, but it seems to me the same principles apply.

-- Mal

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen threatened with jail time re: confidential sources [View all] marmar May 2014 OP

du rec. xchrom May 2014 #1

Not the change I hoped for. More from the article .... Scuba May 2014 #2

+1 xchrom May 2014 #3

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

From the article ... Scuba May 2014 #6

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

Your strawman is on fire. Scuba May 2014 #16

It's basic criminal procedure....when you carve out a privilege, it generally fetters the rights of msanthrope May 2014 #18

This message was self-deleted by its author Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #62

I noticed that, too brentspeak May 2014 #35

... Scuba May 2014 #58

So, your argument in defense of reporter's privilege is not based on the 1st amendment? malthaussen May 2014 #61

Where did I say that? Scuba May 2014 #69

When you accused me of a strawman, as opposed to agreeing that I had correctly msanthrope May 2014 #71

Your strawman is not my argument. Scuba May 2014 #72

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

Come on, Scuba, let's not play games. malthaussen May 2014 #75

Yes, ergo my last post to you on this topic. Scuba May 2014 #79

Thought that was to msanthrope.:) malthaussen May 2014 #90

Oh, I don't think the 6th amendment applies. malthaussen May 2014 #13

What? How does the 6th amendment not apply in the criminal case against Sterling? nt msanthrope May 2014 #15

I don't think the 6th amendment applies to the shield law. malthaussen May 2014 #17

There is no shield law. The extant case is a criminal one, US v. Sterling in which Mr. Risen msanthrope May 2014 #20

I use shield "law" colloquially, of course. malthaussen May 2014 #22

As an attorney, I don't use laws that don't exist at all. msanthrope May 2014 #24

Gocha. malthaussen May 2014 #33

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

Thanks for the discussion. malthaussen May 2014 #54

I don't worry about this one, because although we don't have it, it doesn't stop the flow msanthrope May 2014 #56

"I think it is utter abrogation of progressive principles" brentspeak May 2014 #41

Indeed--it's an interesting day when the "true" progressives are backing a Fox reporter who wishes msanthrope May 2014 #52

I love the smell of 'Change' in the morning!!!! truebrit71 May 2014 #10

War on Truth. Octafish May 2014 #11

War on pesky embarrassing whistle blowers. L0oniX May 2014 #19

How is Jeffrey Sterling a whistleblower? He didn't reveal any abuse of power, or anything else. msanthrope May 2014 #25

Sad when the reporters become Enemies of the State, too. Octafish May 2014 #64

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

Yet another manufactrovery from Matthew Rothschild... SidDithers May 2014 #28

I'm still waiting for someone to read Sterling's indictment and tell me the whistleblowing activity. msanthrope May 2014 #31

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #30

but does she listen to what they say? uppityperson May 2014 #32

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #34

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

Nope. greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #36

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

I think that you must be! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #40

Aw dang, sent back to heaven again. So sad. uppityperson May 2014 #45

She'll be back... greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #47

Cleanup in aisle three! nt msanthrope May 2014 #42

Done...and done. cyberswede May 2014 #43

Thanks! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #46

yes...like a recurring rash cyberswede May 2014 #49

... greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #51

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #76

Yes...just like that. cyberswede May 2014 #78

You are a pig!!! hrmjustin May 2014 #81

I think she gets off on upsetting you but I do agree uppityperson May 2014 #84

Not really. I expect it from her. hrmjustin May 2014 #85

back to talking to the angels again, ms vermin (to copy/paste from your deleted post) uppityperson May 2014 #82

Thank you, good job and good job and uppityperson May 2014 #48

LOL! nt cyberswede May 2014 #50

Looks like someone did it while we were smarting off! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #44

I am enjoying being able to welcome newbies, being just a general DUer again. uppityperson May 2014 #53

And that was certainly a warm welcome you gave to that member! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #55

it is annoying when that happens uppityperson May 2014 #57

And frustrating! greatauntoftriplets May 2014 #59

But, but, but...we are the freest country in the world nadinbrzezinski May 2014 #60

This message was self-deleted by its author Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #63

The arrogance and blindness of Risen are striking. Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #65

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

So it's an ego thing, then. randome May 2014 #80

Given the hatchet job he did against Wen Ho Lee, and his subsequent employment at Fox, he's pretty msanthrope May 2014 #88

It's the Judith Miller defense--redux. nt msanthrope May 2014 #70

I think you missed the details of this. KoKo May 2014 #83

The point is he did read the details...and some of us remember the hatchet job this Fox reporter msanthrope May 2014 #89

bad move, DOJ dionysus May 2014 #66

It's the only move consistent with the law. The Bush DOJ kicked the can down the road, and msanthrope May 2014 #68

thanks. i am not familiar with this case. dionysus May 2014 #86