Somehow I missed this key piece of news about the ability of reporters to keep their sources secret. That right, annoying though it can be on occasion, is immeasurably important to Americans if we count on access to verifiable facts -- as distinct from the endless yadda yadda of political marketing and biased "reporting."
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., issued an order that had been sought by the author, James Risen — who is also a reporter for The New York Times — restricting his testimony in the trial of a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Jeffrey A. Sterling, who is charged with providing classified information to Mr. Risen.
Specialists in media law portrayed the ruling as highly unusual, saying it could set an important precedent. While many states have so-called media shield laws that allow judges to quash subpoenas ordering reporters to testify about their sources by balancing the needs of prosecutors with the public interest, the federal government has no such statute.
“I think it’s an important victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press,” Mr. Risen said. “The protection of sources will allow for the American press to continue to find and report the truth.” ...NYT
Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News summarizes the ruling like this:
The July 29 court order (pdf) said that Risen must testify only about certain non-privileged information. Specifically, Mr. Risen was directed to appear at trial in order to confirm: “(1) that Risen wrote a particular newspaper article or chapter of a book; (2) that a particular newspaper article or book chapter that Risen wrote is accurate; (3) that statements referred to in Risen’s newspaper article or book chapter as being made by an unnamed source were in fact made to Risen by an unnamed source; and (4) that statements referred to in Risen’s newspaper article or book chapter as being made by an identified source were in fact made by that identified source.”
The court order by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema was framed as a “partial grant” of the government’s motion to subpoena Mr. Risen. But it was actually a defeat for the prosecution and an unambiguous victory for Mr. Risen. This is clear from the fact that the court’s very language describing the required scope of Mr. Risen’s testimony was taken — practically word for word — from the June 21 motion by Risen’s attorneys to quash the subpoena, in which they set forth the limits of his willingness to testify (pp. 45-46). ...Secrecy News
It's a good idea to keep a link to Secrecy News as close as your keyring or on the link list at your website. Aftergood and the Secrecy Project of the Federation of American Scientists are invaluable watchdogs in the area of government secrecy. We can thank them for pressuring agencies to declassify information which should never have been classified, and for unrolling those ancient scrolls of secrets the government prefers to keep under wraps simply in order to avoid admitting its own errors.
