Obama administration the ‘greatest enemy of press freedom’

Post your thoughts and comments on terrorism, war, and political shit like that.

Moderator: Metal Sludge

Post Reply
User avatar
brotherplanet
Show Me Your Dick
Posts: 7556
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:31 pm

Obama administration the ‘greatest enemy of press freedom’

Post by brotherplanet »

NYT reporter: Obama administration the ‘greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation



New York Times reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” on Friday, explaining that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those that refuse to play along “will be punished.”

Poynter reports that Risen made the remarks while speaking at Sources and Secrets conference — a meeting of journalism and communication professionals held in New York City. The foreign policy reporter, who is currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source, warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America.

In a speech kicking off the conference, Risen claimed that the Obama administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting.” Those who stray from that path, he cautioned, “will be punished.”

The result is a “de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen explained, making the current White House “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” And the media has been “too timid” in pushing back against the onslaught.

Some of that timidity was on display at the conference. Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he reportedly declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.” :shock:

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, certainly agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”




Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/nyt-r ... z2ww15xWUd


The comment section is pretty fucking funny.



Jake Fontaine • 8 minutes ago

"Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we
ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the
same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if
no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular
disclosure.”

Does that analogy cover the warrantless mass collection of phone call
metadata (and probably content) of U.S. citizens? After all, there is
the risk of violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of every person
whose data is collected in such a manner, even if no harm can be shown
in the end from any particular collection (actually, it's more than a
risk -- it's a metaphysical certainty).

The intel community needs to be slapped down hard and then put on an
extremely short leash as far as domestic collection is concerned.
Journalists can sound the alert, but ultimately Congress has to do their
job and stop this unconstitutional behavior.
User avatar
DEATH ROW JOE
Signed to a Major Label Multi-Album Deal
Posts: 20480
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Obama administration the ‘greatest enemy of press freedo

Post by DEATH ROW JOE »

brotherplanet wrote: “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.” :shock:
Why the shock emoticon? He's correct. Reporters do not have a special testimonial privilege under the Constitution. If you actually gave a fuck about this case or this issue, you would know this.

From the appellate court ruling requiring Risen to testify:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Pu ... 5028.p.pdf

"There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court “in no uncertain terms rejected the existence of such a privilege.”

Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972): "Until now the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do."
Post Reply