It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Other journalists who have gone to jail rather than comply with subpoenas since 1984, when the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press began compiling such information, include:
Felix Sanchez and James Campbell, Houston, Texas, newspaper reporters, locked in judge's chambers for several hours in 1991; had refused to stand in the back of courtroom and identify possible eyewitnesses to crime.
Four newspaper reporters in South Carolina jailed for eight hours in 1991. Subpoenas sought unpublished conversations with state senator on trial in federal court for corruption.
Tim Roche, Stuart, Fla., newspaper reporter. Subpoenaed in 1990 to reveal source for leaked court order supposed to have been sealed. Jailed briefly, released pending appeal. Later sentenced to 30 days for criminal contempt. Served 18 days in 1993.
Libby Averyt, Corpus Christi, Texas, newspaper reporter. Subpoenaed in 1990 for information about jailhouse interview. Jailed over a weekend.
Brian Karem, San Antonio, Texas, TV reporter. Subpoenaed by defense and prosecution in 1990; refused to reveal names of individuals who arranged jailhouse interview. Jailed for 13 days.
Roxana Kopetman, Los Angeles, newspaper reporter. Jailed for six hours in 1987 for resisting prosecution subpoena seeking eyewitness testimony.
Brad Stone, Detroit, Mich., TV reporter. In 1986, refused to reveal identities of gang members interviewed several weeks prior to cop killing. Jailed for one day.
Chris Van Ness, California, free-lance writer. Subpoenaed in 1985 in connection with John Belushi's death. Jailed for several hours; revealed source; released.
Richard Hargraves, Belleville, Ill., newspaper reporter. Jailed in 1984 over a weekend in connection with libel case.
Miller told U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan at a hearing Thursday that she would not answer questions from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about her conversations with confidential sources. Hogan said Miller had no special right as a reporter to defy a subpoena in a criminal investigation, but agreed she could remain free on bond while the Times appealed his decision.
Fitzgerald's investigation centers on whether a government official knowingly revealed the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Intentional disclosure of such information by an official authorized to have it could be a felony.
Originally posted by TheBigD
....idiots that voted him in can wallow in their stupidity. They Voted with emotions instead of logic.
Originally posted by Ulvetann
Then we reach a new topic. Political prisoners.
Sometimes it is better to be jailed, than to loose the cause, right?
-But is it still right to jail them?
Originally posted by flukemol
College Teacher Shows 'Fahrenheit 9/11', Gets Rebuked; Film shown before elections in class on English composition.
even teachers are having a hard time.once again freedoms of speech being hit hard.
so what do we think now about speaking out?gee they treat criminals better then they treat our media and other people of great thought.let bring back gaileo out of the castle dungeons.
Originally posted by MrNice
(...)If the source is committing a crime by giving material to the reporter and then the reporter further enables the crime by reporting it(...)
Originally posted by MrNice
how can anyone think it is acceptable to allow the reporter to protect the source?
It's perfectly ok to ask for the source....and to hold the reporter accountable if one is not forthcoming.
The First Amendment also provides journalists with a limited privilege not to disclose their sources or information to litigants who seek to use that information in court. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court held that reporters did not have a privilege to refuse to answer a grand jury's questions that directly related to criminal conduct that the journalists observed and wrote about.
However, the court's opinion noted that news gathering does have First Amendment protections, and many lower courts have applied a qualified First Amendment privilege to situations in which the need for the journalist's information was less compelling than in Branzburg. These courts require litigants to prove that the material sought is relevant to their claim, necessary to the maintenance of the claim, and unavailable from other sources. In addition, more than half of the states have adopted statutes called "Shield Laws," which provide a similar privilege to journalists.