Reply #131: The First Amendment

[H2O Man]

says nothing about the right of a reporter to keep their sources confidential. There is a significant body of case law that results from years of interpretation of how that amendment applies to the "free press." Included in those cases are court decisions about reporters and confidential sources. Most agree that reporters can protect the identities of "whistle blowers," who reveal criminal activities within government agencies, etc.

In the Plame case, we have a reporter (Novak) who cooperated with government officials who were committing a crime. Judith Miller's role remains somewhat unclear. She does not want to testify, or to have her notes regarding the activities surrounding the outing of Plame reviewed. Neither of the two are trying to protect the identity of a whistle blower. Neither can claim any constitutional or case law that justifies refusing to cooperate in an investigation of a federal offense. The law is actually quite clear in requiring their cooperation when it is requested by a federal grand jury.

As far as the First Amendment, there are other cases with less clear-cut issues that should be evaluated. Also, I think the media has the right to hire whoever they want, even Novak or Miller. But I think that we have the right -- even obligation -- to question who else Miller actually works for, and to say to advertisers that we will not buy their products if they support any program Novak appears on. That's another benefit of a "free press."