Supreme Court says no to NYT “reporter’s privilege”
Beldar explains it all to us non-lawyers:
This decision was a battle won for the United States on the home front in the global war on terrorism. And it’s another fine example of how the mainstream media, led by the New York Times, is absolutely willing to let you be blown to bits by terrorists in order to protect your “right to know.”
[...]
Here it is in two sentences: The FBI was prevented from freezing terrorists’ assets and catching terrorists because somebody leaked what they were about to do to the New York Times, and the NYT proceeded to warn the terrorists themselves! Now the NYT says that because it was just promoting the “public’s right to know” and the First Amendment, its phone company should be immune from having to give evidence to permit a grand jury to decide whether any crimes were committed as part of this debacle.
Must read the whole thing, because this isn’t the last we’ll hear about it.
He’s got more today about the New York Times’ loose lips here. And as an aside, damn, I’m glad to see Beldar is back.
Beth (Blue Star Chronicles) says:
By their own definition - dont we have the right to know what their phone records are? I dont understand.