The reason why the Plame investigation is NOT a 1st amend. issue

[burythehatchet]

I'm no consitutional scholar. I haven't even read the first amendment of the BOR. But I do believe that the rights and priveleges embodied therein were meant to protect people conducting lawful activities.

How can the reporters claim 1st amendment rights when the underlying act was a criminal act? Wouldn't that be against public policy? Does that not harm all of us collectively.

I am all for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. But I don't think this case warrants those protections.

[RebelYell]

1. I agree

Naming Valerie Plame as a CIA operative was treason. 1st amendment should not apply. I'm no lawyer either, but it seems like common sense to me.

[lottie244]

2. Excellent point. Make noise about it.

Ask the media on the spot!

[Flagius]

3. What pisses me off...

What pisses me off is that they are going after reporters from Time and MSNBC to see "what they know", when we KNOW FOR A FACT that Novak knows exactly who the leakers were. Why not harass him and leave these real journalists alone?

[phiddle]

4. They need other journalists

both to corroborate, and also to strengthen the case that the leaker intended to out Plame. As for calling Tim Russert a "real journalist", I'll pass.

[Flagius]

5. Well

Well apparently Novak hasn't even been summoned to testify.

[phiddle]

6. He might not be summoned,

if he is a target of the investigation. Also, these investigations generally start with the peripheral players, looking for detail which can be used to judge/guide the later testimony of those more central to the matter.