Visitors

September 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 04/2004

« Outing angle in collapse | Main | Hansen's assessment »

October 24, 2005

Comments

Christopher King

This is a rough case because you want so badly to engage in “spot-zoning” of sorts, or law-for-a-particular-case to divest Ms. Miller of the First Amendment Super-Man Cape, because something about her just doesn’t smell right, but let that be no excuse to set aside the paradigm: Reporters (and the derivative public) deserve the Right of Absolute Privilege except involving (1) National Security or (2) the presence of demonstrated Bad Faith on the part of the reporter that threatens the integrity of the paper itself. Whether or not we have the latter in this case remains to be seen.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2005/10/back-to-jailed-reporter-judith-miller.html

-c

Tom Bowler

You seem to think Judith Miller's refusal to provide the Times with details of her confidential conversations with Scooter Libby is evidence of bad faith -- capitalized no less. Why should she be forced to disclose to anybody what she was told in confidence? Why do you think the corporate entity that is the New York Times, with all their profit motive baggage, is more trustworthy than Judith Miller? The Times was likely to publish confidential information against the wishes of, and in conflict with the agreement between, Miller and Libby. Are you on the side of the Times because Scooter Libby was part of the Bush Administration?

The comments to this entry are closed.