Original Story Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13508-2004Aug18.html)

A federal judge yesterday held reporters from four major news organizations in contempt for refusing to name confidential sources in their reports on a nuclear scientist once accused of being a spy.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said that reporters for the Associated Press, the Cable News Network, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times must tell attorneys for Wen Ho Lee the names of federal officials who gave them confidential information about the former nuclear-weapons scientist. The judge fined the news organizations $500 a day each until they provide the names, but said payments can be delayed pending appeals.

"It's becoming a perilous time for journalists who rely on information provided under terms of confidentiality," said Floyd Abrams, the attorney for reporters James Risen and Jeff Gerth of the New York Times. "The upcoming rulings by the Court of Appeals in Washington will send an important message about journalists being able to do their jobs, particularly about reporting on the functioning of government."

The cases were the first of their kind to be adjudicated in Washington since 1981. Lee's case pitted the rights of the media against the scientist's right to pursue evidence that could prove his claims. Depositions by Lee's attorneys of government officials yielded no useful information, said Jackson, who has deemed the journalists' accounts to be central to proving Lee's claims of Privacy Act violations.

Although the journalists showed up for depositions, they refused to name their sources. They invoked First Amendment defenses that have been upheld by the courts that allow journalists not to identify confidential sources. That led to a hearing before Jackson yesterday, in which he heard arguments on the contempt matter.

Since Jackson already had rejected the media's First Amendment arguments, the outcome of yesterday's 90-minute hearing was a foregone conclusion. "We knew this would be the ruling, but we are pleased Judge Jackson understands this is a matter of principle, not an affront to the court," said Charles D. Tobin, attorney for former CNN reporter Pierre Thomas, who now is with ABC.

Is source confidentiality a part of First Amendment rights, or do you think that in certain cases they should be forced to reveal their sources? Nowhere in the First Amendment does it specifically state that sources are confidential information, and revealing them after the story has been run doesn't neccesarily affect freedom of the press, since the story has already come out. However, in certain cases revealing the source could result in injury or death to the source, and in cases such as those I'd have to say that the source should stay confidential. Discuss.

This is not the first case of reporter confidentiality being met with a courts ruling of contempt. Given that the sources for the reporters information were actually Federal Officials who were investigating Mr. Lee, or close to that investigation, injury or death of the informants is very unlikely. That they may be held accountable for their actions in a National Security issue, however, is a distinct possibility.

To clarify the subject of the investigation of Mr. Lee. .he is suspected of espionage or insecure mishandling of extremely sensitive documents from the United States Nuclear programs. He has told investigators that he removed classified documents, as well as computer material, from the Secure area where he used to work, brought it home to "work on it" then returned it to the Lab. There is an ongoing investigation into exactly what that material was, and whether he had tranmsitted it to anyone, or if it was compromised.

I'm led to believe, given my own Secret Security Clearance while in the Military (no, I won't talk about it), that Mr. Lee basically signed away a good portion of HIS rights when he received his Top Secret security clearance and access to Nuclear materials he was working with. The same would be true for anyone investigating this occurence, and a "Do not talk" order would have been issued to anyone involved with the investigation. If someone DID talk to reporters, under condition of anynomity, it would have been against orders from their superiors, and counter to the interests of this Country, and they would probably face charges for it.

None of this gives the reporters 1st amendment protections. There are laws in place concerning espionage that specify procedures and limitations of the 1st amendment, as well as other rights. These are usually effective in times of war, but because of the extreme sensitivity of this case, would probably be applicable.

That the Judge in this case has found the reporters in contempt shows, IMO, that this IS such a case wherein laws that overrule personal rights come into effect in times of Extreme circumstance (Similar to shouting FIRE in a theater, but much more sensitive due to the nature of this case). The Reporters and their Employers can fight it all they want. . I'm sure there are cases in the past that make the Judges ruling perfectly legitimate by supporting the reasons and necessity of his action.

I'm not a big fan of usurping our rights. . but it has proven necessary, however distasteful it may be, to have these procedures in place for circumstances such as this. We may have Free Speech, but once you sign that dotted line giving up your rights and accept that Top Secret Security Clearance, everything around you changes, and even the slightest slip on your part can bring some pretty ugly resluts to bear. Such is the case now, I believe.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

Generally speaking, Freedom of the Press is tossed out when National Security is considered an issue.

Generally speaking, Freedom of the Press is tossed out when National Security is considered an issue.
Generally speaking, freedom of anything is doomed to be tossed out when National Security is considered an issue. ;)

Regardless of how well you think it performs, we need to have a free media. It is one of the hallmarks of democratic society.

What happens when a reporter voluntarily names sources that had asked to be confidential? Nobody with anything to hide will ever go to that reporter again. Similarly, if the government can force reporters to reveal their confidential sources, why would those sources go to reporters in the future? That's the government throwing its weight around and limiting the ability of the media to gather information and disseminate it to the public in the name of 'national security' which, as this and previous administrations have demonstrated, is a concept which can be stretched to cover just about anything. Besides that, the government 'leaks' information all the time to reporters ON PURPOSE. Even the President himself has been an 'anonymous White House official' at some point.

The media needs to be able to operate freely all the time, not just when the government deems it convenient, and this includes gathering information from people who may be breaking the law by providing it. The burden is on the PROVIDERS of the information to not break the law, not on the MEDIA who gathers it.

Sheep .. that is a VERY Naiive view of reality. First off. . any breach of national security can be met with imprisonment, fines, or even being executed should the offense prove serious enough What is a reporter doing going after National Secrets in the FIRST place?? They do NOT have clearance for that information, they are NOT sworn to protect our Constitution. .they are NOT a Federal employee who has clearance to view/attain such information in the first place. Basically. . they are a SPY. You can have all the credentials you want. . you get caught with classified information, even if you are not giving it over to anyone else,it's called Espionage.

This is where "Responsibility" and "Freedom of speech" butt heads. . You MUST be held responsible for your actions, or else we have anarchy. A reporter who knowingly gains access to classified materials he is not cleared to view, is subject to penalties and imprisonment. Thus, the judges decision in this case to hold the Reporters, AND the companies they work for, responsible for their VERY bad decision to delve into matters of National Security without going through the proper procedures. Also, these reporters are basically standing in the way of an investigation of a Foreign National accused of Espionage, because the information they possess may not be actually accuratte, but no one will know until the Judge gets a full accounting of who gave the information, what information it was, and how it has been disseminated.

Basically, the reporters stepped into some REALLY Deep doo doo. . . .they KNEW better, and now they are paying the price for sticking their noses where they did not belong.

We have freedom of speech in this country, but NOT Freedom from stupidity and the consequences of it.

Also, these reporters are basically standing in the way of an investigation of a Foreign National accused of Espionage

Actually, that entire sentence is incorrect.

Wen Ho Lee has been a naturalized U.S. citizen for almost 20 years, and the case in question is NOT the investigation of him for espionage. That case ended years ago with a plea bargain. The current case is Wen Ho Lee's COUNTERSUIT against the US government for unlawful imprisonment, et cetera.

In addition, the courts have ruled for a long time that reporters cannot be legally forced to reveal their sources. (edit) No they haven't... scratch this last bit.

Actually, that entire sentence is incorrect.

Wen Ho Lee has been a naturalized U.S. citizen for almost 20 years, and the case in question is NOT the investigation of him for espionage. That case ended years ago with a plea bargain. The current case is Wen Ho Lee's COUNTERSUIT against the US government for unlawful imprisonment, et cetera.

In addition, the courts have ruled for a long time that reporters cannot be legally forced to reveal their sources. (edit) No they haven't... scratch this last bit.

I suggesst a reading of the indictment against Mr. Lee:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/lee_indict.html

Given the broad parameters of the original indictment, National Security is still a factor. Even with a plea agreement, Mr. Lee is still chargeable on related charges if further evidence against him surfaces. The government will be investigating all "loose ends" of this case for quite some time, making those officials who have talked to the Press liable for their actions.