Here's one I'm mixed about...

[Partha]

As far as I understand, the process of having a journalist talk about sources is a very narrow one, requiring a judge to issue the subpoena for very specific reasons. In this case, whoever leaked Plame's name (and the subsequent outing of the front company she was in while covert) committed a felony.

[SicTimMitchell]

I'm very conflicted on this.

On the one hand, revealing a covert CIA operative's name in the press is much worse than it appears on the surface. Plame undoubtedly had human assets, some of whom may well have been tortured and killed before we invaded Iraq.

Even if that didn't happen, the big picture is that it can have a dampening effect on the intelligence community's ability to develop assets.

In other words, this is a big deal.

On the other hand, there's another big principle at stake. Journalists often have to guarantee their sources' confidentiality in order to get to a story. Without Deep Throat, there would have been no revelation of Watergate.

IMO, we live in an era that would have made Orwell dizzy. A free and independent press is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, and without it, we'd be even more ignorant of what the government is really up to than we are now. (Hey! People are FINALLY starting to talk about that Office of Special Plans I've been harping on for the last couple years. Of course, now the intelligence community has been shredded anyway.)

I can't make this call. I could take up either side of this in a debate.

[Relbeek Einre]

Exactly, Bang... exactly what I was getting at.

[superwalrus]

how is a court mandating a journalist reveal his sources going against principles of free press? The two concepts do not conflict.

Walrus

[Relbeek Einre]

Like hell they don't. Deep Throat being the canonical example.

[maltheos]

how is a court mandating a journalist reveal his sources going against principles of free press? The two concepts do not conflict.

Walrus

Becuase if that source puts his/her livelyhood or life at risk by coming forward with the story the journalist has an implicit obligation to protect that person's identity so that future sources in similar circumstances will feel able to come foreward without getting screwed. If not then there will be a chilling effect on the willingness of such sources to come forward.

[Akhbarali]

These informants are not viewed in the same way as Deep Throat in the eyes of the law and there is a reason for the different view. Let me ask you a question Bang, why didn't the courts force Woodward and Bernstien to divulge their sources even though much of the case law on informant confidentiality predates that era?

Akhbar

[Klast Brell]

Attorney Client
Doctor Patient
Priest Confessor
Husband Wife
Reporter Source

Why are some relationships protected and others not? Without getting bogged down in specifics about one proffecion or another, is there a clear dividing line?

[Arathena]

In the original four, the ones with protected secrecy have had the secrets divulged to them out of the needs of the one divulging the secret - A physican or lawyer cannot perform his services for you without the free ability to know the truth about you. Much the same way, a priest cannot absolve you without knowing what you have done, nor assign a course of atonement - And for many millions of Americans, such atonement is an absolute moral obligation. The intimate nature of the husband-wife relationship makes it nigh impossible to expect one to be able to keep a secret from a spouse, in addition to various other emotional compulsions to share confidential information with your spouse. The reporter's source, however, does not have these obligations: If the source does not give information to the reporter, it is not the source who is shit out of luck. The reporter is not rendering him a life, death, or afterlife service. He is under little compulsion other than the 'hey, this should be public' influence. In short, the source suffers no significant damage from keeping his trap shut, and thus, is very well free to tell the reporter to pisser off.

The question then becomes: Is the importance of the media's(reporter's) ability to gain information so crucial to society that it calls for a series of laws or court decisions, specifically created to give him the privledge of impediment of justice? Personally, I thinks so.

[SicTimMitchell]

why didn't the courts force Woodward and Bernstien to divulge their sources even though much of the case law on informant confidentiality predates that era?

They were subpoenaed to reveal their sources, but a single federal judge made the decision.

It may seem different on the surface, and the motives for the subpoenaes certainly were, but Deep Throat almost definitely was part of the conspiracy him or herself. That is, Woodard and Bernstein were likely protecting a criminal, for the same reasons as in this case.

And I gave W&B as a single famous example. Many journalists have been held in contempt for refusing to reveal their sources.

It's not just about government -- all sorts of whistleblowers, from corporate to law enforcement to public safety, would no longer have the media to turn to without fear of retribution.

[Relbeek Einre]

But on the other hand, there has been a serious breach of national security, and these reporters' sources weren't trying to blow whistles or do anything noble - they were trying to punish Plame's husband for daring to criticize the President. I don't feel the scope of reporter-source confidentiality should extend to that. However, I don't think you can arbitrarily narrow the scope to cover cases like this without also opening the door for more appropriate cases where anonymity should be protected being compromised.

It's all very ugly. But I still want to know who's responsible for the Plame leak.

[Tromor]

I think the fact that talking to the reporter in itself was a felony tilts this one ever so slightly to the side of revealing sources.

I know that means any information that the president doesn't want leaked simply has to be classified as secret (or whatever the classification is that makes it a felony). But I think the repercussion to the authority of preemptivly classifying information would deter them at least a little.

This would endanger anyone wanting to blow the whistle on, for example, a badly flawed defense system, but in most cases, an anonymous tip would at least get the reporter looking.

With W&B, the passing of the information about Watergate was not a felony in itself, so the reporter should be under no legal pressure to reveal sources.

[Eidolon Faer]

There are two principles here that are in direct conflict. The partisan in me, the side of me that KNOWS the Bush administration did this and a hundred other crooked things and wants to nail their punk asses to the wall...

Hmm...nice to see you're keeping an open mind in the absence of any credible evidence, Relbeek.

Yup, the ability of the press to keep sources confidential is vital to our society...not like that pesky "innocent till proven guilty" crap that nobody cares about anyway...

Tell me, would you feel conflicted if it was the NY Times refusing to name a source in a Clinton Administration scandal?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Attorney Client
Doctor Patient
Priest Confessor
Husband Wife
Reporter Source

Why are some relationships protected and others not? Without getting bogged down in specifics about one proffecion or another, is there a clear dividing line?

Not really. Most priveleges come are born from aspects of the First Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.

[Relbeek Einre]

Once again, Eidolon, you do a fine job of twisting my words. You're a true blue Republican, you are.

Tell me, would you feel conflicted if it was the NY Times refusing to name a source in a Clinton Administration scandal?

If that scandal involved a breach in national security? Yes.

SicTim is pretty much exactly in the same position I'm in here, Eid. Why are you taking the opportunity to be a jackass to me and yet apparently not having an issue with his taking the exact same position?

At least I was able to parse out the partisan in me from the non-partisan in me when discussing the issue - acknowledge my own bias. Don't you wish you were capable of doing the same?