Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Please DU this CNN poll

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:11 AM
Original message
Please DU this CNN poll
8:10 EST results:

Should reporters be jailed for refusing to reveal their sources?
Yes............22% 11965 votes
No.............47% 25525 votes
In some cases..31% 17151 votes

Total: 54641 votes

The poll is on the front page; scroll down - it's on the right.

http://www.cnn.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Murdock Donating Member (315 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. honestly..
This isn't the time for this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I respectfully disagree.
Should terrible news cause us to take our eye off the ball? Does this mean * gets a free pass? You can bet your bankroll that bu$hCo is not 'distracted' by anything.

I'm sickened by what is happening in London. Do you think our national policies and preemptive wars have anything to do with this?

We currently do not have a free press in America; this is another nail in the coffin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. DU it how?
Which way are you imploring DU to vote on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:23 AM
Original message
The assault on reporter's sources is an assault on your First Amendment
rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Does it matter? I could argue that without the protection of confidentiality, you would not hear of government wrongdoing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. OK.
There is a disappointing number of misguided DUers that are applauding the jailing of journalists for doing their duty in keeping their sources confidential. You did not indicate if you were one of them, so I felt like I should ask.

Thanks for the neat civics lecture, though. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
8. That does NOT apply to the commission of felonies. Read the....
...actual law as it pertains to this matter, and then read the 1972 Supreme Court decision nullifying freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment when journalists/newspeople are asked to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries.

-------------------------------------------------

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > 421

421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_se... >

QUOTE:

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agents intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agents intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individuals classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences

A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

---------------------------------------

And now read the following 1972 Supreme Court decision

U.S. Supreme Court
BRANZBURG v. HAYES, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
BRANZBURG v. HAYES ET AL., JUDGES
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY
Argued February 23, 1972
Decided June 29, 1972


<http://www.thisnation.com/library/branzburg.html >

QUOTE:

Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE WHITE, announced by THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

The issue in these cases is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. We hold that it does not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justinsb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. I voted No
I'd like to see Rove busted too, but this isn't the way. How is a free press supposed to operate if they can't have unnamed sources? Who is going to tell a reporter anything if they know the reporter might be coerced to out them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. I voted No out of principle.
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 07:25 AM by Eugene
Karl Rove's head comes at too high a price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. Voted - No .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC