"NEWSHOUR":Was Seizure of AP's Phone Records Justified or Harmful to Press Freedom?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

See and read @ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june13/doj2_05-14.html

DAVID SCHULZ: Well, there always are issues and balances, I think, as the White House said today, between national security and the free press.

But this sort of action should be taken in very, very rare circumstances. And I don't think that the Department of Justice has demonstrated that what it did was appropriate here. Certainly, there's a lot of unanswered questions; 20 journalists involved in the story? We also know that the leak that we think that they were investigating was a story that was held by the AP. It was handled responsibly.

When they understood the government had concerns about the timing of the story, it wasn't broadcast or released by the AP. So there was a responsible effort by the press here. Now, whether the government has a right to go after classified information, it does.

But, bear in mind, if the government can get from the press any time it wants to information about who its sources are, pretty soon the only thing we are ever going to know about the government is what the government wants to tell us. This just really is not how things work. And it's a tremendous adverse effect on a free press.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Notice how the word government is used here

[Riftaxe]

2. Any time you can intimidate the press

is a good thing, if you don't keep them in line, they might get ideas....

[Lady Freedom Returns]

3. The big problem is not Intimidating the Press.

It is intimidating the informants.People will not want to talk to the press if they think the Government will be able to get a subpoena to find you.

As the article/interview states, "And there are regulations in place that were put in to rein in the excesses of the Justice Department in going after reporters in the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate era."

Those regulations are to help reporters to protect "Whistle Blowers". Now something, more legislation, will have to be brought to keep this breach from ever happen again since the DOJ has a problem with following regulations.

[Riftaxe]

4. no informants, no awkward information

problem solved. The fact that they sent the subpoena 270 days overdue is just icing on the cake. Some people will enjoy these tactics, those are the people who enjoy the sniff of corruption, and are best avoided.

[randome]

5. There WAS legislation to better protect sources. Issa, among others, voted against it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bolo Boffin]

6. It could be both, like chemotherapy.

Chemo works by attacking everything in the body. Cancer cells are weaker than regular cells, so they die off quicker. Then you leave the body alone and let the normal cells spring back.

Something like this (grabbing the phone records of AP reporters) is a calculated risk. Yes, it's damaging to press freedom. Yes, it hurts the AP's ability to do their job. Yes, it hurts the AP's business model. But if the investigation is important enough, then the chance must be taken. The letter from the AG claims that this was such an instance, that due diligence had been done before, and that every precaution against harming the AP unnecessarily had been and continues to be taken.

This is the real crisis point for the Obama Administration. The AP has fought back hard in its arena of strength, publicity. (They have a real bully pulpit!) As long as the DoJ can document what they've done and the justification for all of it holds, then they'll be all right. But God help them if things are out of order here. Benghazi is bullshit; the IRS thing is bad but defensible for all I've seen. The AP phone records subpoenas will sink Obama if things get out of hand, though.

And if we're lucky, what this will sink is the Patriot Act.

[6000eliot]

7. I only wish we had a real free press to harm, rather than the corporate lapdogs we have now.