Reporters lose in leaks case
The Supreme Court on Monday turned aside pleas by two reporters and a magazine urging the Justices to create, for the first time, a right not to be forced to reveal to the government their confidential news sources. The action means that, at least for the time being, the Constitution and federal common law do not recognize a “reporter’s privilege” of confidentiality. (The Court denied review in Miller v. U.S., 04-1507, Cooper and Time Magazine v. U.S., 04-1508.)
Reporters Lose in Leaks Case
Via Scotus Blog: The Supreme Court on Monday turned aside pleas by two reporters and a magazine urging the Justices to create, for the first time, a right not to be forced to reveal to the government their confidential news…
Comment by TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime — June 27, 2005 @ 10:29 am
Open Access Denied
SCOTUS Blog reports on the Brand X case: “In a 6-3 ruling, the Court decided that cable operators offering high-speed Internet access have no legal duty to open their service to customers of all Internet service providers. In the cable…
Comment by Copyfight — June 27, 2005 @ 10:34 am
Grokster-backlash
One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
Comment by mymarkup.net — June 27, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
How does Robert Novak escape the prosecutors wrath, as he is the one who actually published the name of Valerie Plume?
Comment by Michael Taylor — June 27, 2005 @ 12:48 pm
It is generally assumed that Robert Novak cooperated with the prosecutor in some capacity. Its impossible to know for sure since grand jury proceedings remain secret.
Comment by Liz — June 27, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
The easy answer is, the entire investigation has been politically motivated from the start and Novak happens to root for the right team. The harder answer is that we don’t know what Novak said to investigators behind closed doors or in deposition, and that information is unlikely to be published any time soon given the nature of the problem. He may have sung like a canary, in which case he’d be scot free.
Grokster and the Ten Commandments are going to get all the press and noise today but I think this is a much more important, and disturbing, development than either of those cases. It will make it far more difficult for honest reporters to act as muckrakers because few people will be willing to give reporters information when the reporter can later be subpoenaed and ordered to give up the name of the source. That this comes so soon after the revelation of Deep Throat is particularly ironic.
Comment by Matthew Smith — June 27, 2005 @ 6:17 pm
Maybe you should mention that publicizing the name of an embedded undercover agent is a federal offense that endangers their life and the lives of all of their contacts, and completely ruins any missions any of these people were working on, possibly costing us billions of dollars and exposing the country to greater risk? ’cause that seems important.
Comment by RanDomino — June 27, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
My apologies for what might by a silly question from a newcomer (and non-lawyer), but I remember that one opinion from the appellate level had several pages redacted concerning the testimony itself. I’m assuming that the justices had the opportunity to review such text prior to ruling on cert? Or would even they only be able to read it had they granted cert?
It would seem that this text would be the central element in even deciding whether this case is worth review, since even Branzburg seemed to allow for circumstances in which a prosecutor sought to harass a reporter (e.g., if this were “politically motivated”).
Comment by R.R. Ketcham — June 27, 2005 @ 10:50 pm
girls pissing
girls pee in shower girls pee peeing pee desperate housewives wee hidden bathr…
Comment by Anonymous — July 29, 2005 @ 5:58 am
panties
bikini girls sexy lingerie bikini girls teen thongs micro bikini sexy lingerie sexy lingerie
Comment by Anonymous — July 29, 2005 @ 5:58 am