August 12, 2008
After the Federal Bureau of Investigation disclosed last week that they “improperly” obtained reporters’ phone records, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking officials on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for greater legal protection of journalists. The New York Times reports the senators’ bill “would limit the government’s ability to collect a reporter’s phone records and, in most cases, require a court to weigh the need for such material."
The Bush Administration has strongly opposed a shield law for journalists arguing that national security overrides it. However, because of potential First Amendment violations, requests for reporters' phone records are “supposed to receive an even higher level scrutiny before they can be approved,” usually requiring approval of the attorney general or another high-ranking Justice Department official.
Comments | 7 Total
August 12, 2008 at 11:14am by Douglas Paul
On the surface this seems like a no-brainer given the times in which we live but the US government has now become the boy that cried wolf. Far too many times "national security" has been used to violate rights and this seems like another example. If the government wants a journalist's records because of "national security" reasons, they should prove it. True national security ricks are relatively easy to prove and so doing so shouldn't pose a problem. Also we need journalists to be able to act as unfettered as reasonably possible since we often rely on their expertise to get us information that we should know but the powers that be don't want us to know. If they can't tell a source that they will protect their identity, then sources will dry up and so will information. To me issues like these raise the question of where the real threat to our security lie.
August 12, 2008 at 12:55pm by Lynne d Johnson
Just last week 44 people on this site agreed that, "Complete Privacy Does Not Exist," in the case of Google and its right to have photos of homes on Google Maps. Yet here, it seems most people are saying that privacy does exist, and furthermore that national security should not trump privacy.
Granted, I believe that journalists have the First Amendment to protect them, but if there was a threat posed to this nation and a journalist reported on a story with anonymous sources, I would want to know more information (especially as it regards the Freedom of Information Act). The public, if not the government, has a right to know. We're talking about national security here, threats to the nation, not someone bribing the CEO of a Fortune 500.
August 12, 2008 at 2:14pm by John Dixon
The real THREAT to our nation and way of life occurs when our enemy can leverage our fears to restrict our freedoms. In addition, by eliminating the sanctity of the reporter's sources, we begin to control the press. So, while this may feel right when the threat is actually a terrorist - it will be applied unilaterally to everything that the government might view as a threat. For example, based on interviews with George Bush at the Olympics, he believes religion is an important part of government. What if he decides atheists are a threat. Can he get the phone records of any reporter that has interviewed an atheist? Should he track them all down and put them away? Would any atheist want to be interviewed going forward? Would we stop seeing stories written from the opposing point of view? Is this healthy? Is this what our forefathers had in mind? This has the potential to usher in a new era of McCarthyism! Our Constitutional freedoms were arrived at by men who were hellbent on creating a nation free from this type of tyranny. Let's not be so quick to dismiss any one of them. These guys said things like "Give me liberty or give me death" and they meant it - a lot of them paid the ultimate price for it. Please do not let Freedom (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) out of your sites - that is and has always been the dream.
August 12, 2008 at 5:40pm by mike gadd
I think John and Douglas bring up important points. 'National security' can be broadly interpreted just like 'terrorist.' And the ultimate repercussions of the actions that are taken because of these words can be far reaching and long lasting.
It's especially important to consider the definition of a 'journalist,' especially in a time of blogs and CNN iReporters and social networks, when thinking this idea through.
August 12, 2008 at 7:30pm by Vernon Martin
In the name of protection, our privacy is tapped, spied on, and infiltrated. Where does freedom end and protection begin? We have to be very careful about the liberty that we give agencies or individuals that have the power to invade privacy. We should weary of the outcome of an overly liberal use of reasons for invasion that could easily lead to political and social abuses. Just a quick glance back at the sixties will reveal the wire tapping of any and every group that seemed political. Who are our journalists? Do we think that our journalists are particularly against our national security? Perhaps I am out of touch with the problem. It is scary though, I can’t help but think of the images of a police state where the populace is protected from the enemy as defined by the government and of all things to controlled, media was at the top of the list. Will it start with the journalists and their records, then the writers, and then the books, burn baby burn? www.vernonmartincoaching.com
August 14, 2008 at 1:31am by Brendan Kennedy
Once a nation, any nation, descends to the denial of a free and unhindered press, once it imposes draconian laws in the name "national security", "national interest" or other fears of the unknown, it has reached a state of paranoia, or more fearfully, a state where they have admitted defeat to the terrorist whims and acceded to them by belittling the constitution and the very precepts of a free and democratic society.
August 14, 2008 at 10:14pm by Jay Tatum
Isn't this conversation interesting? We proceed as if a certain childhood innocense is still in play when in reality, we are being monitored by Uncle Sug. Perhaps my skepticism is misplaced on this topic but I suspect that when the internet was being conceived and created, someone in a position of leadership and vision recognized the need to be vigilant in the execution of national security, way before the Bush Administration got credit for being the heavy-handed First Amendment deniers! The very thought of naivete is an understatement when it comes to national security.
Denying journalist' First Amendment rights in light of other, more urgent national security measures is embarassingly displaced. While I could make the argument that national security is more important than First Amendment rights and lose myself in the content of meaningless babble, from a process perspective, the argument is sufficiently over-rated. I can't imagine anyone in possession of information so sensitive that the government doesn't already know its content. The draconian laws with which some are so concerned would benefit from a more careful study of history to discern the context in which draconian laws were enacted.
Personally, the free and unhindered press intended by the First Amendment is alive and well and living in the USA. The price paid for protecting one's sources is akin to the price paid for the freedom it allows. Freedom isn't always free, and regrettably, the price the free press pays for the right to communicate it carries with it the awesome responsibility of knowing when to hold it and when to fold it. We sometimes confuse the rights the First Amendment offers and protects without the responsibilities that accompany such rights. Go figure.