Judge: Newspaper Can Protect Sources (NYT Judith Miller phone records)

[Rose Siding]

NEW YORK -- The New York Times has a First Amendment right to protect the confidentiality of its sources by denying the government phone records in certain instances, a judge ruled Thursday.

Saying that secrecy in government appears to be on the increase, Judge Robert W. Sweet refused to toss out a First Amendment lawsuit the newspaper filed last year to stop the Department of Justice from getting records of phone calls between two veteran journalists and sources.

The calls between journalists Judith Miller and Philip Shenon and their sources were made in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

In a 120-page ruling, the judge noted that the government can obtain such telephone records during a grand jury investigation when the information sought is highly material and relevant and cannot be obtained elsewhere. But he said those conditions had not been met....
...
In a separate case, Miller is one of two reporters facing jail for refusing to divulge their sources about the 2003 leak of an undercover CIA officer's name. The other is Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-ny-times-lawsuit,0,506404.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

[rumpel]

1. Interesting. I was not aware that the gov was on a fishing expedition

on top of the Plame case. Intimidation, while Novak is still running around free.
Would love to see the whole ruling...

[madrchsod]

2. that sucks`

hopefully fitzgerald will appeal but he may let this issue drop in favor of going after novak.

[Bozita]

3. Sounds like Judge Sweet is about to get a mudbath

[Village Idiot]

4. What about "pretend" journalists?

;)

[CottonBear]

5. Judge: Newspaper May Protect Sources

Judge: Newspaper May Protect Sources

Thursday February 24, 2005 8:31 PM

By LARRY NEUMEISTER

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - The New York Times has a First Amendment right to protect the confidentiality of its sources by denying the government phone records in certain instances, a judge ruled Thursday.

Saying that secrecy in government appears to be on the rise, Judge Robert W. Sweet refused to toss out a First Amendment lawsuit the newspaper filed last year to stop the Department of Justice from getting records of phone calls between two veteran journalists and sources.

``The free press has long performed an essential role in ensuring against abuses of governmental power,'' the judge said.

The calls between journalists Judith Miller and Philip Shenon and their sources were made following the Sept. 11 attacks. The Justice Department had advised the Times that it planned to obtain records of all telephone calls by Shenon and Miller for 20 days in the months immediately following the attacks.

more...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4823756,00.html

[plcdude]

6. I doubt

that this overrules the right of the justice department to obtain information in federal criminal case involving the revelation of an active CIA agent.

[shance]

7. However, when someone ELSES protection is at risk, they must give sources.

At least that is what my understanding of such law has been.

Any attorneys have any thoughts?

[ausiedownunderground]

8. When is Fitzgerald going after Novak????

Miller and her cronies deserve some "jail time". Not revealing a source that helped you expose an important US Intel Asset in order to "rubbish" her husband's reputation because he wasn't "playing ball" with the original source or his/her masters political requirements doesn't sound like First Amendment protection rights to me. This sounds more like "Treason"!!!
A bit of "Jail time at "Terre Haute" for Miller and Co may well "clear their minds" and also give them a great oppurtunity to research an article on the US's Federal Penitentiary System. Treasonable offences should usually see you spend your "time" in maximum security!!! Murderer's, molesterer's and Miller! Should be quite a "Cell Block" experience for her!