June 1, 2007
"Shielding journalism," editorial, May 27 Reporters should trust the 1st Amendment and the courts to protect the essential interests of the public in their reporting. Reporters do not need and should not fear the judicial process in relation to shielding their sources from public disclosure. In those cases in which source confidentiality is argued, the issue is always one of whose rights should have primacy -- the right of a reporter to shield or the right of the public to compel disclosure.
November 28, 2006 |
The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the New York Times and two of its reporters from a prosecutor's probe into who leaked word of planned raids on two Muslim charities five years ago. The decision clears the way for federal prosecutors to review the phone records of the two reporters for several weeks in the fall of 2001. The prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago, says the records will help point to the source of the leak.
June 6, 2006
FIVE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS -- including the Los Angeles Times -- agreed last week to pay a total of $750,000 to Wen Ho Lee, a former nuclear scientist who was arrested in 1999 and jailed for nine months as part of an espionage investigation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The payments, part of a negotiated settlement of Lee's lawsuit accusing the U.S.
May 19, 2006 |
Senators began a new effort to pass a media shield law Thursday, reintroducing legislation they said would protect journalists from being sent to jail for refusing to reveal their sources in most cases. The bill, rewritten with guidance from more than 30 news organizations, drew new support after changes that could force reporters to disclose sources if they witnessed a crime or obtained information deemed secret by law.
July 21, 2005 |
Advocates for a federal law that would shield journalists from having to disclose confidential sources told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the lack of such protection was impinging on the public's right to information. But the panel's Republican chairman said journalists should not hold their breath. And some unexpected opposition came from Democrats who said they found the proposed law too sweeping.
July 20, 2005 |
The Justice Department plans to announce its opposition today to a proposed federal shield law that would protect journalists from having to reveal their sources. In written testimony scheduled before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Deputy Atty. Gen. James B. Comey calls the bill "bad public policy." In the testimony, Comey says the bill would give more protection to reporters than is offered others, such as attorneys and spouses, who are also shielded from testifying.
March 23, 2005 |
Three Web bloggers who published secrets about Apple Computer Inc. filed an appeal Tuesday, as expected, arguing that a judge's ruling requiring them to reveal their sources violated the 1st Amendment. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled March 11 that the three online reporters would have to provide the identities of their confidential sources.
February 16, 2005 |
News reporters do not have a 1st Amendment right to refuse to testify about their conversations with government officials, a three-judge panel of a U.S. appeals court said Tuesday, upholding a judge's order that could put reporters from Time magazine and the New York Times in jail. The decision by the panel of the U.S.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 19, 2005 |
British TV journalist Martin Bashir asked a judge Tuesday to reject a bid by prosecutors to have him testify in Michael Jackson's upcoming child molestation trial. Bashir's 2003 documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson," triggered a furor when the pop star admitted that he enjoyed sleepovers with young boys.