Should it ever be a crime for journalists to tell the truth?

[Dookus]

If so, how do you define exemptions that protect the good guys from the bad guys?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I believe in the First Amendment

but even the First has its limitations. Everyone has heard that we have the right to say whatever we want, but that our rights are limited if what we say causes harm to others-this is the "shouting Fire in a crowded theatre" argument.

Just so, I think journalists have a limitation on what they should print. Imagine if a journalist had gotten wind of the Manhatten Project during WWII and had printed a story about it. Or told the Axis that we had broken their code. Of course that didn't happen because people were more responsible then. Make no mistake-the agenda of the Bush Administration and their media lackeys doesn't put the national interest first.

So should journalists be compelled to name their sources? I think that they should or that they (read Novak) should be prosecuted for the criminal offense of outing a CIA agent.

[Dookus]

4. Then tell me

how such a law can be constructed that would protect a journalist who told the truth about war atrocities, or more specifically, about Abu Ghraib.

Do you trust the US Government to decide which secrets are worthy of sharing and which should be illegal?

What's wrong with the truth?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

5. Thank you for your

opinion. It is both refreshing and challenging and we look forward to your further contributions.

[KelleyKramer]

7. Yes, just like yours

To quote you on 'contribution'

What a powerful contribution you have made

[Dookus]

12. Thank you for

your insight. We are all refreshed and rewarded by your detailed position.

[Kagemusha]

3. In case it wasn't said enough during the other thread...

The whole Plame case is about the journalists being compelled to tell more of the truth than they wish to on the grounds that newsgathering is far more important than investigating the outing of CIA agents under the cover of secrecy, not just in this specific case but in all circumstances. People who want to see Novak in jail will only see him in jail for refusing to tell the truth under oath in a manner that does not incriminate himself. There is nothing to give him immunity over if you are correct (as I believe you are) that there's no way they can lay a legal hand on him. So, he gets threatened with contempt, he testifies, we find the traitor. The rest is just wishful thinking.

But, Novak is likely to spend time behind bars if he thumbs his nose at the court, as would you or I. The grand jury thinks that this is serious business and is entitled by law to testimony. If punishing actions that may lead to American deaths is not worth Mr. Novak's testimony in his own mind, then his own body shall be relocated, since he is not above the law. No journalist is, at present.

I'll throw this out too - there's no need to separate journalists into good and bad if they're all subject to the law.

[Dookus]

6. you are missing the point...

Novak can ONLY be charged with contempt of court for refusing to testify about what he knows about a crime committed by others. He himself did not commit a crime.

Do YOU believe it should ever be a crime for a journalist to print the truth?

[Kagemusha]

10. Uh, those two sentences are totally unrelated!

So what if he didn't himself commit a crime. He's a witness to one. Witnesses are compelled to testify under oath every day, and in large numbers, under the penalty of contempt or perjury for failure to do so.

And no, I don't believe it should be a crime for a journalist to print the truth. GUESS WHAT. IT'S NOT.

I want to see more of the truth, not less. More would include finding out who leaked this poor woman's name so that Al Qaeda could find out who she is and who she works for, and burn whatever network she had.

[Dookus]

14. My question was not whether

there should or should not be legal recourse against a journalist who witnesses a crime. I asked if reporting the truth should ever be a crime.

But...

Tell me what law you would use against Novak, and why that same law shouldn't be applied against Seymour Hersch to determine who told him about the happenings at Abu Ghraib.

[drhilarius]

8. Absolutely not.

trying to define the "good guys" from the "bad guys" seems arbitrary and dangerous. I know a lot of people are getting caught up in the Novak thing because it seems like a way to hang the Bush admin., but we have to pay attention to the bigger picture. Assume another Bush emerges in the future who has done something atrocious. Now there's an insider who has info that can topple him, but in doing so he may jeopardize his career or life. Any kind of, say, "Novak law" that requires journalists to report their sources, at the behest of the government, may prevent said informant from providing the info.

[Dookus]

9. You win the Dookus Award

for Excellence in Understanding.

The people here who demand Novak be prosecuted would be horrified by the application of such a law against other journalists. The short-sightedness expressed here daily is very disturbing.

[Birthmark]

11. This is easy.

If the reporter is an integral part of crime, as is the case for Novak, then it *should* indeed be a crime. Whoever leaked the name could never have done so effectively without Novak's assistance. Therefore, he is an accomplice.

Now, if we take the Iraq prison scandal, those acts occurred and did not depend upon the reporter in any way.

It's really quite simple. Novak is an accomplice to a crime. I have no idea what the law actually says about such things, but we're talking hypothetically.

[Dookus]

13. It's easy?

Only in crazy liberal heaven.

Should Daniel Ellsberg have been prosecuted for revealing the Pentagon Papers to the Washington Post and NY Times? If not, why not? Because he was sympathetic to our side?

Should Seymour Hersch be prosecuted for revealing the "secrets" of Abu Ghraib?

It is only a fool who thinks the law can only used against one partisan side.

[Birthmark]

15. You are shifting the goalposts.

There is a difference between asking if something should be a crime and if someone should be prosecuted for it.

You have also ignored My statement. Did Hersch torture anyone or assist in the torture by reporting? The answer is, of course, no.

Should Ellesburg have been prosecuted? Under my guidlines, I believe that he could have been. Whether he should have been would have been up to a prosecutor and is, as I said, quite a different matter.

I appreciate the "crazy liberal" comment, too. I think that it helped your credibility. ;)

[Dookus]

20. Then tell me how to construct a law

that allows for the prosecution of people you dislike while protecting the rights of "real" journalists to report the truth.

As for "crazy liberal" I stand behind it. The level of thought provided here is abysmal.

[Birthmark]

24. You aren't standing behind, you're hiding behind it.

Then tell me how to construct a law that allows for the prosecution of people you dislike while protecting the rights of "real" journalists to report the truth."

Why should I? That's your characterization and has nothing to do with what I said. Now, do you want to discuss this or engage in cheap rhetorical tricks and hysteria? You make the call.

[Kagemusha]

16. Look, Ellsberg wasn't a journalist.

He got off on technicalities and so on, and also because the nation was against his prosecution, but look, he wasn't a journalist.

If you're going to start arguing that those who reveal the secrets to journalists should be protected as well, even in the case of willfully or with blatant disregard for the consequences, damaging national security, then that argument's a bridge too far. I can't support that; I can't ever support that.

[drhilarius]

17. Again, using my hypothetical from above.

If said informant against "bad president" (Bush 3,whatever) leaked the name of an agent to a reporter, and in doing so unraveled or foiled a plot, then would you believe he or she was guilty of a crime? If he knew his identity would be revealed,and he would be convicted of a crime, would he talk? Would the journalist report?

[Kagemusha]

18. If the "plot" 's to track WMD proliferation then he damned well

should fear prosecution for it!

And if he doesn't know what the agent's job is then he shouldn't be breaking the person's cover!

And I'd say the same thing if Kerry was president. Perhaps even louder.

[Dookus]

22. Be very specific

tell me exactly how a law should be worded that allows for prosecuting Novak but protects Hersch.

[Kagemusha]

26. For the last time...

You can't write a law to prosecute Novak and protect Hersh because it violates equal protection... WHICH IS WHY I HAVEN'T BEEN ARGUING FOR ONE. I didn't even discuss Hersh above. I discussed Ellsberg, who wasn't a journalist during the Pentagon Papers incident.

I'm being very damn specific.

[Dookus]

28. Fair enough

Ellsberg was not a journalist. But I'm not asking for a special exemption for journalists. I'm asking for an exemption for telling the truth.

Let's forget Ellsberg. How about Hersch? If the Feds decide that telling the truth about Abu Ghraib is damaging to national security, would it be OK for Hersch to be imprisoned?

[Birthmark]

19. Probably not.

Sometimes we have to ask ourselves, "Is this worth a possible prosecution?" This might also be a neat way to separate the wheat from the chaff, too. People won't come forward for cheap, political reasons, but almost certainly will for something truly evil.

You are also overlooking a rather important point, imo. Once it's known that the plot exists, it seems highly likely that there is another direction from which the story can be pursued, thus protecting the source. This might require a little more work on the reporter's path, but if it's THAT big a deal it would be worth the effort.

[Dookus]

21. I believe

a very simple fact: telling the truth should NEVER be illegal.

[Kagemusha]

27. For anyone?...

Your argument really is a bridge too far.

I'd protect journalists' right to tell the truth, sure. But protect, say, a nuclear scientist's right to train Iranians in making a nuclear bomb? That's telling the truth - the methods are scientifically known to work. But that doesn't make it legal!

And what of attorney client privilege? Just because an attorney knows his client's guilty as sin doesn't mean he should be telling it to the world!

Who's being nonspecific now. This is getting tiring.

[Dookus]

29. I'm sorry your stamina is not up to this discussion...

I am referring to journalists telling the truth. You have yet to delineate under what circumstances it's prosecutable and what circumstances it's OK.

As for attorny-client privilege, if an attorney violates it, it is a matter for the Bar Association, not the law.

I am being very specific, as I always am when arguing technical points. Again, I apologize if you don't have the stamina to keep up.

[sendero]

23. There is a simple distinction between this...

.... and the typical case of a journalist uncovering a secret and reporting it.

And that is simple. Journalist's didn't "uncover" anything. They were fed information from sources who wanted it to be revealed.

I don't see how this compares in any way to a situation where a journalist actually has some sensitive information as a result of an investigation.

I don't know how, or even if it is possible, to create legislation that accounts for the distinction, but there should be.

[depakid]

25. Read what Oliver Wendel Holmes says

in Schenk v. US and tell me it doesn't apply to journalists.

Hint- it's the clear and present danger case....

[Dookus]

30. Again

a mere distraction.

The writings of a court justice do not make criminal law. If you want to maintain that Novak can be prosecuted because of Holmes' decision, you really should not be allowed in a courtroom.

There is only ONE law in play here, and I quoted it in my original post, and it's clear Novak violated no provision of that law.

You make the mistake most weak thinkers make: you come up with a conclusion and then work backward. You believe Novak should be jailed at all costs, and you'll find any reason to do so. That is not only weak thinking, it is legally suspect.

There is a principle involved that is greater than Robert Novak: the truth should not be punished. I understand and respect that the government has secrets it must keep. The responsibility for doing so, however, belongs with the goverment, not with the press.

[sadiesworld]

31. "The writings of a court justice do not make criminal law"

You are very wrong here, Dookus. It is called case law.

[Kagemusha]

32. Sigh.

Look... I'll make this nice and simple.

Journalists cannot be prosecuted for telling the truth in this country.

I've heard of this really rare exception for reporters who try to repeatedly expose the names of covert agents. That hasn't really seen full tests in court, but congress can legislate in a case of compelling national interest, and in that case, it has.

Barring that.

Journalists cannot be prosecuted for telling the truth in this country.

End of story.

As I said before, the only way journalists can be prosecuted for contempt is because they don't want to tell quite enough of the truth.

Using the 1st amendment to cover up rather than expose is a perversion of the constitution and existing case law, and the courts are in no mood to hear it unless the reason for making a reporter testify is pathetically weak. A case of treason is not weak. Hence, the federal judge in question was in no mood to change existing case law (until being struck down).

[sadiesworld]

33. I'll assume you meant to address the original post here, not mine.

[Kagemusha]

35. Sorry, your icons are similarly colored.

Human error. Have a nice day.

[Dookus]

38. then we agree

no law prohibits a journalist from telling the truth.

This was a very roundabout path to agreement.

[Dookus]

37. Please

tell me of a case where somebody has been convicted of a crime based on a court decision and not on law.

Edit: I understand case law is important - but it's important to courts, not to cops.

[depakid]

42. Again, you are simply wrong

and apparently unamenable to anything other than the same sort of black and white thinking that George Bush engages in. Shenck is the classic case that stands for the proposition that there are limits on free speech in a national security context. It was even a prior restraint case! The fact that you fail to recognize its significance and how it relates to your blanket statement about journalists being prosecuted for "telling the truth" in any context simply belies your ignorance.

You make the mistake that many "weak minded" thinkers make (your words)- you seem unable to abstract from one case to the broader principle- or from the broader principle to the individual case. As a result, you end up making absurd statements and forclosing alternative rationales that may apply, both to the individual case and your broader general rule.

For example, although you ignore the Espionage Act other commentators- (John Dean, for example) do not. Here's why:

In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.

Although the photos compromised no national security secrets, and were not given to enemy agents, the Reagan Administration prosecuted the leak. That raised the question: Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted?

The Administration argued that the answer was no. As with Britain's Official Secrets Acts, the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.

So, here we have a case on point- one that reaches further than Schenk and arguably further than the facts we already know about Novak. Clearly, what the journalist disclosed was true. Whether you think he should have gone to jail is irrelevant. He did. So, if a journalist came to you under similar circumstances- wanting to disclose something similarly "truthful," what would you advise?

Would you play it from the gut? Or would you actually look at the law and do some analysis. Personally, it doesn't bother me that you have the need to cling to an untenable postition- your proposition that "truth should not be punished" doesn't even bother me all that much- it's narrow and simplistic, but I sense it comes from the right place.

Small solace for your client, though.

[JDPriestly]

39. Difference between Ellsburg and Novak cases

The whole point of classifying information is to let the press and the rest of the public know that it would be against the public interest, and therefore, a bad act, to publish the classified information.

The Pentagon Papers were classified documents that contained information about government wrongdoing. When Ellsburg supplied the Papers for publication, he disclosed secret information and that was a bad act -- a crime. But, that bad act was balanced by the "good act" of disclosing the wrongdoing. Once in a while, although rarely, the American people's interest in learning the truth about government misdeeds outweighs their interest in safeguarding national secrets. Ellsburg would not have been justified in supplying the Pentagon Papers for publication if they had not revealed illegal/wrongful conduct on the part of the government. It would have been wrong of him to reveal them, for instance, to embarrass a co-worker.

As we know, the Plame information was also classified. Disclosing it was also a bad act. Novak and his government accomplice(s), however, did not blow the whistle on government wrongdoing. It appears, therefore, that there is no public interest to balance against the wrongdoing of disclosure. Novak is not hiding the identity of a whistleblower; he is hiding the identity of a criminal who violated American law.

I have not heard whether Novak faces charges for contempt, which is a violation against the authority of the court. If so, as I recall offhand, within certain parameters, the judge has a lot of discretion in how to deal with him.

I have watched a judge send a witness who refused to show up for hearings to jail for contempt. It was not a pretty scene. Most people agree to testify once they realize what contempt charges mean. If Novak is smart, he will make some kind of deal.

I hope this makes sense. It is awfully early in the morning.

[St. Jarvitude]

34. Geez, first you slam Radiohead, and now this

When will the controversy end? :P

[Dookus]

36. lol

I know... I'm a real asshole. :P

[ProfessorGAC]

40. I Don't Think This Is The Right Question

In the context you've asked it, the answer is obviously no.

However, since i know you're implying the Novak situation, the question is different. I would suggest that protecting a source who has violated U.S. law puts the journalist under a different situation.

He is NOT protecting a source to get information that would otherwise be kept from the american people apropos governmental policy. That i would support fully.

He is protecting someone who willfully, and for political reasons, that do NOT benefit the people of the country, broke the law.

In my view, Novak is not protecting a source, but abetting a felon. I consider this a completely different issue, that goes beyond the scope of the 1st amendment.

Once he had that information, he has a right to publish. But, he also had a duty to, in full public view, reveal the source as someone who broke the law to give him that information. He did one, but not the other.

In that way, i believe he is liable for punishment, but not for publishing the name.
The Professor

[RichardRay]

41. A clarifying question

Can I ask Mr. Dookus to split a couple of hairs for me?

For your term "tell" I am going to use the term "publish" since I'm guessing your post refers to journalists 'professional speech' not to talking to their kids about Santa Claus. I will include speaking the truth as publishing since that's how broadcast jounalists do it.



Is it ever immoral for a journlist to publish the truth? to not publish the truth when they know it?

Should all immoral acts be illegal?



Is it ever unethical for a journalist to publish the truth? to not publish the truth when they know it?

Should all unethical acts be illegal?