Sustainability| More...
 

<em>LA Times</em> Editorial Defends Reporters\' First Amendment Rights

LA Times Editorial Defends Reporters' First Amendment Rights

The Huffington Post   |  Dipayan Gupta   |   March 13, 2008 05:10 PM

Read More: Anthrax, Anthrax CBS, Cbs, Dr. Hatfill Anthrax, Dr. Hatfill Toni Locy, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, First Amendment, Hatfill, Hatfill Anthrax, Jim Stewart Anthrax, Jim Stewart CBS, Judge Reggie B. Walton, Judge Reggie Walton, Judge Walton, LA Times, LA Times Anthrax, LA Times Locy Anthrax, LA Times Toni Locy, Locy Anthrax, Locy USA Today, Rob Lurie, Rob Lurie First Amendment, The Case For Protecting Journalists, The Case For Protecting Journalists LA Times, Toni Locy, Toni Locy Anthrax, Toni Locy Anthrax USA Today, Toni Locy USA Today, Tony Locy Contempt Charge, USA Today, Breaking Media News
digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy is being held in contempt of court by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton for refusing to identify the law enforcement sources cited in her report on the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. Walton's ruling requires her to pay fines beginning at $500 a day for seven days, which escalate to $1,000 daily for the next week and to $5,000 per day for the week after.

Locy is fighting back. This Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed Walton's order for the course of her appeal. But today's LA Times editorial, written in defense of Locy and the First Amendment, paints a grim picture for other journalists:

Even if she does (win), other reporters could be pressed to choose between bankruptcy and a violation of professional ethics. Until the Supreme Court reverses a wrongheaded 1972 holding that the 1st Amendment does not protect a reporter's privilege, protection must come from Congress.

The LA Times believes that a bill that was approved by the Senate last October may be the best way to protect journalists like Locy from the courts. Today's editorial praises Senators Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking Republican, who urged Senate leadership last week to schedule floor action on this bill:

The bill would require federal courts to recognize a qualified privilege for confidential sources -- one that could be overridden in a civil suit like Hatfill's when the information sought "is essential to the resolution of the matter." Even then, a judge would have to take into account both the public interest in compelling disclosure and the public interest in gathering news.


How did Locy, who now teaches journalism at West Virginia University, get herself into this situation? In 2003, Locy wrote two reports for USA Today-- available for download here -- claiming that unidentified law enforcement sources has identified Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a onetime bioterrorism expert for the Army, as the most likely suspect in the anthrax deaths. The case, however, remains unsolved, and Hatfill is suing the federal government, saying his reputation was ruined by the aforementioned leaks from anonymous officials.

Do you think that Locy and Stewart should be protected from the courts? Read filmmaker and producer Rob Lurie's blog on the 1st Amendment and let us know!


 
Comments
5
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
- Aslanspal I'm a Fan of Aslanspal 4 fans permalink
photo

Wheneve a busbot pops off about how we have not been attacked since 9/11 ...drop the anthrax killer on them...and their response is "Duhhhhh..­..plum firget bout dat one'

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 PM on 03/14/2008
- Dem02020 I'm a Fan of Dem02020 13 fans permalink
photo

The Los Angeles Times editorial, in addition to being a poorly written and weak argument in this matter, is DISHONEST.

It states...

"Locy insists that she doesn't recall who in the FBI or the Justice Department confirmed that Hatfill was under investigat­ion..."

"Confirmed"?

That's bull. Whoever it was in the FBI or the DOJ (it's most likely FBI) that was Locy's "source", they did not "confirm" that Hatfil was a "person of interest", they LEAKED that information to her; they told her this "person of interest" crap, they didn't merely "confirm" it.

There's a big difference, and it's an important distinction to make.

If indeed Locy asked someone in the FBI (most likely) to "confirm" something, then to confirm what?
That Hatfil was a "person of interest"?
That implies that she already knew of Hatfil, and this "person of interest" crap; and subsequently seeks "confirmation" of that information.

If so, then how did she find out about Hatfill in the first place?

It's bull to say that someone in the FBI merely "confirmed" something to Locy, as though she found out about Hatfill, who knows where... from a psychic? From a dream?

She had to find out Hatfill's name somewhere, someone had to tell her.

That's what is to be discovered in this lawsuit against the Bush administration, in the name of privacy and JUSTICE, and of how the Bush administration violated Hatfill's privacy, by maliciously leaking to the press a phony suspicion of him, as a "person of interest" in the anthrax mailings, for who knows what malicious distractionary game-playing reason they did that... to manipulate the American People's opinion about the anthrax mailings no doubt.

It's extraordinary how the Los Angeles Times writes an editorial, in defense of the Bush administration, and to "shield" them and keep us from finding out, who in that administration maliciously leaked Hatfill's name to Locy...

Again, LEAKED his name to Locy, not "confirmed" it to her.

That's the whole point to the lawsuit against the Bush administration, to find out who leaked that information to Locy... she had to find out somehow.

Who knows why she's "shielding" the authors of that reputation­-destroyin­g act... who knows why the Los Angeles Times also seeks to "shield" the Bush administration in this matter, and keep the FACTS from being discovered, keeping them behind a "shield".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 03/14/2008
- mamacat I'm a Fan of mamacat 136 fans permalink

The last seven years have shown us the results of a less than stellar free press. The fourth estate needs to be encouraged to do their jobs, so that politicians and citizens alike may act more wisely.
It sounds like the Senate thinks restoring her Constitutional rights would be good for everyone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 AM on 03/14/2008
- nanotubz I'm a Fan of nanotubz 7 fans permalink

Her sources have hung her out to dry and she continues to protect a group who were either lying to look good, just incompetent, or a combination of both. We need to know just to be rid of them. In the mean time if she wants to play martyr, let her.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 03/13/2008
- bryangalt I'm a Fan of bryangalt permalink

Let's get one thing clear right away-the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances­."

This country is tampering with its very foundations when it allows the judicial system to run over our media by handing out rulings that amount to extortion (fines that increase exponentially until the desire information is illicited).

As for Mr. Hatfil goes, why does he feel he's someone special in this matter? If he was a suspect, but then was cleared later, good for him. How is this the fault of the reporter? If his life is still not back in order he should examine who is holding him back and sue them for penalizing him even though he was not convicted of a crime.

The real solution to the problem is two-fold. First, a reporter should never be forced to reveal a confidential source, just like a lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose his conversations with his clients. Second, whistleblower laws should be made rock solid: if a person blows the wistle on illegal activities, they should be commended, rewarded and be shown as the right kind of person entrusted with our common good. The fact of the matter is just the opposite with our national motto still "no one likes a tattle tale."

If people could come forward without being persecuted, the press wouldn't have to hide their identities for the sake of us all.

Frankly, who in their right mind would prefer to live in a society where the government is able to force everyone to talk, where anyone can be taken to jail for exercising their constitutional rights and where no one seems to care about the fact that they could be next...

Shame on the federal judge...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 03/16/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect