How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press

[fgarvb1]

How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press

Much of the Fourth Estate shrugged when the Obama administration attacked Fox News, writes Kirsten Powers. But now it’s coming for them, too.

more... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl.../articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

 

[RobDownSouth]

They're Victims! VICTIMS DAMMIT!

And for the record, the Democrats tried to criminalize what the Government did via the Federal Shield law. The Republicans defeated the legislation.

You shouldn't blame the administration for using tools available to it.

 

[SinCity_Smitty]

And for the record, the Democrats tried to criminalize what the Government did via the Federal Shield law. The Republicans defeated the legislation.

really? in 2009, the Federal Shield bill that candidate Obama supported in 2008 passed the Republican-controlled House but died in the Democratic-controlled Senate, never receiving a full vote, after President Obama let it be known that he veto it without significant changes being made to it

One of the bill’s authors, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York), had sharp words for the president at the time. “The White House’s opposition to the fundamental essence of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback. It will make it hard to pass this legislation,” the senator said. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania), a co-sponsor, called the changes “totally unacceptable.”

“If the president wants to veto it, let him veto it,” Sen. Specter told the Times in 2009. “I think it is different for the president to veto a bill than simply to pass the word from his subordinates to my subordinates that he doesn’t like the bill.”

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...secuting-journalists-even-easier-2655854.html

 

[unregistered]

 

[run_silent]

I am so tired of the excuse that the other side did it. They claim it was outrageous and just plain wrong.

Pick which ever side you think I'm talking about.

Both sides claim it was wrong but since the other side did it we can do it too.

A pox on both their houses.

A pox of Biblical proportions. It may be the only solution.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

really? in 2009, the Federal Shield bill that candidate Obama supported in 2008 passed the Republican-controlled House but died in the Democratic-controlled Senate, never receiving a full vote, after President Obama let it be known that he veto it without significant changes being made to it




http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...secuting-journalists-even-easier-2655854.html

It never got an up-or-down vote because Republicans filibustered it.

Nice try.

 

[SinCity_Smitty]

It never got an up-or-down vote because Republicans filibustered it.

Nice try.

A month after the administration objected to the Schumer-Specter bill, the parties reached a compromise that largely reflected the Obama administration's preferences. The compromise also would not have protected reporter notes and other records from a prosecutor's subpoena.

The bill cleared the Judiciary Committee, but was unable to garner the votes necessary to pass the Senate, even though Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60 seats at the time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/reporter-shield-law-obama_n_3280025.html

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press

Much of the Fourth Estate shrugged when the Obama administration attacked Fox News, writes Kirsten Powers. But now it’s coming for them, too.

more... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl.../articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

Why would he need to spy on the liberal press who treats him as the Messiah?

 

[fgarvb1]

Why would he need to spy on the liberal press who treats him as the Messiah?

Why?

Well in case you haven't noticed more and more democrats and liberals are discovering Obama is out to give them a fucking overlike everone else!

Shocker I know.

 

[Boxlicker101]

How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press

Much of the Fourth Estate shrugged when the Obama administration attacked Fox News, writes Kirsten Powers. But now it’s coming for them, too.

more... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl.../articles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

You can change the title to include that "Transparency" gave way to skullduggery.

Let's face it. The Big O is just another Chicago politician, more charming than most, but just as crooked and slimy.

 

[ChinaBandit]

A month after the administration objected to the Schumer-Specter bill, the parties reached a compromise that largely reflected the Obama administration's preferences. The compromise also would not have protected reporter notes and other records from a prosecutor's subpoena.

The bill cleared the Judiciary Committee, but was unable to garner the votes necessary to pass the Senate, even though Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60 seats at the time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/reporter-shield-law-obama_n_3280025.html

Nice shove up Throb's ass. Read it Throb: "A filibuster-proof 60 seats at the time."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Or, to use another Obama catch phrase:

http://www.politico.com/wuerker/2013/05/may-2013/000999-014678.html?ml=wu

 

[richard_daily]

You can change the title to include that "Transparency" gave way to skullduggery.

Let's face it. The Big O is just another Chicago politician, more charming than most, but just as crooked and slimy.

What offices did he hold in Chicago?

 

[Bert Notorius]

What offices did he hold in Chicago?

blago moved the il state capital to chicago. don't play stupid.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What offices did he hold in Chicago?

The info is readily available. He was a "community organizer" and was elected to the state legislature before becoming a senator. He has charm and charisma, which are vastly better than ability if you want to be a politician.

 

[imalickin]

Obama is a thug and he has been using his thuggery since he was elected and now everyone is finding out how big a thug he really is.

And only his staunchest supporters like Mercslob and Throb along with the infamous richard(fake)daily will try to persuade and cajole anyone they can to believe the bullshit that they spew on a daily basis about their beloved leader who has promised them a new Amricka. The only problem is, the messiah didn't promise they would be part of it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's ludicrous that Obama is advancing legislation to protect the press from him. Why doesn't he just govern from within the Constitution and revert to being the top law enforcement officer in the nation.

Branzburg v. Hayes: The Evolution of the Reporters’ Privilege

by Donald Scarinci on November 29, 2012

The Supreme Court has only considered the existence of a reporters’ privilege once during its storied history, and it ultimately concluded that the First Amendment does not afford such protections. Yet, Branzburg v. Hayes is cited today as establishing a test for determining when the reporters’ privilege can be used to prevent confidential sources and information from being compelled.

The Facts of the Case

The appeal before the Supreme Court involved several individual cases in which reporters were called to testify before grand juries and reveal the identities of confidential sources. All of the reporters refused to appear. The question before the Supreme Court was whether requiring reporters to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court concluded that the First Amendment to the Constitution did not afford reporters any special protections. "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," Justice Byron White wrote for the majority. "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."

The majority, however, refused to close the door completely. It noted that “official harassment of the press undertaken not for purposes of law enforcement but to disrupt a reporter's relationship with his news sources" could be unconstitutional.

Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. went even further in his concurring opinion. In addition to making it clear that “the Court does not hold that newsmen, subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, are without constitutional rights with respect to the gathering of news or in safeguarding their sources,” he also stated that “the courts will be available to newsmen under circumstances where legitimate First Amendment interests require protection.”

Justice Powell then went on to describe a balancing test that is still used in most federal courts when determining the existence of the reporters’ privilege. “f the newsman is called upon to give information bearing only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation, or if he has some other reason to believe that his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement, he will have access to the court on a motion to quash, and an appropriate protective order may be entered. The asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct. The balance of these vital constitutional and societal interests on a case-by-case basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions,” Justice Powell explained.

Taking the majority and concurring opinions together, the federal courts, including the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, have all recognized the existence of a limited reporters' privilege. In addition, the majority of the states have enacted their own shield laws.

http://scarinciattorney.com/branzburg-v-hayes-the-evolution-of-the-reporters-privilege/

What Justices White and Powell both understood was that the First Amendment protection against abridging the freedom of the press was NOT one that was specifically intended or reserved for a collective body of citizens nor was there any expectation that such a right would necessarily be exercised corporately by a group of people displaying the characteristics of a for-profit media company or association.

At its core, freedom of the press was understood to be an individual right of each citizen, and the democratization of the publishing process so unmistakeably manifested by recent technological advances in the internet and world wide web is but the next natural step in the liberating evolution of communications unleashed by Gutenberg's invention of movable type in 1439.

As an individual right, freedom of the press is not presumed to be superior to any other individual right nor to the collective right of the people to form a government for the purpose of serving the public good.

One fundamental expression of the public good is a judicial system whose function is enabled by the police powers entrusted to the government. A key feature of that police power, long recognized at common law, is the power of the government to compel witness testimony as a fact-finding methodology of the judicial process. In fact, it was the recognition of that aspect of governmental power that served as philosophical fodder for the Sixth Amendment guarantee of compulsory production of witnesses favorable to a defendant as well as the Fifth Amendment exemption of compulsory self-incriminating testimony.

These Constitutional protections are well known, but their specific relationship to the legal duty of citizens to the judicial process and the government's authority to compel the performance of that duty, may not be typically appreciated.

In the Branzburg case, the Supreme Court was understandably reluctant to expand the scope of privileged communications exempt from judicial compulsion beyond that traditionally granted to those between a defendant and his legal counsel as well as those between a parishioner and his or her priest or cleric.

The performance of an attorney or minister in their role of confidential counselor has been argued as analogous to a journalist's professional oath to maintain the desired confidentiality of the sources providing sensitive information. But the difference as a practical matter that potentially impacts the function of the judicial process is that the mantle of attorney or priest (along with its attendant requisites of confidentiality) is not readily and credibly claimed by large numbers of the citizenry. In contrast, the freedom of the press claimed by the journalist is not reserved for one distinguished by whatever training may be common to the title, but is, once again, an individual right freely available to us all without respect to the manner or frequency with which we may "publish."

This raises the obvious potential for conflict, which the Court was loathe to exacerbate, between OUR First Amendment rights, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and/or duties as material witnesses in fulfillment of the pursuit of justice.

It is for these reasons that "striking the proper balance" Powell referred to is often far more difficult than one may be tempted to assume.

 

[Mike_Yates]

Yes, the root agenda of the war on terrorism is the total evisceration of the constitution/bill of rights and the complete totalitarian subversion of American democracy.

 

[mercury14]

Nice shove up Throb's ass. Read it Throb: "A filibuster-proof 60 seats at the time."

Sorry no. Ted Kennedy was ill and not at the senate. 59 votes. Regardless, you can't blame filibusters on the part that "only" has 56 votes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

A month after the administration objected to the Schumer-Specter bill, the parties reached a compromise that largely reflected the Obama administration's preferences. The compromise also would not have protected reporter notes and other records from a prosecutor's subpoena.

The bill cleared the Judiciary Committee, but was unable to garner the votes necessary to pass the Senate, even though Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60 seats at the time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/reporter-shield-law-obama_n_3280025.html

At least two Democratic senators refused to vote in favor of the weakened legislation, together with a Rapepublican minority that is unable to put the needs of the country ahead of the needs of their party.

"Filibuster proof" in name only.

Keep trying.

 

[richard_daily]

The info is readily available. He was a "community organizer" and was elected to the state legislature before becoming a senator. He has charm and charisma, which are vastly better than ability if you want to be a politician.

So in other words, no offices in Chicago.

 

[CHNOPS]

Everything else aside, some simple questions:

If the administration suspected that someone was compromising their fight against terrorist groups targeting the US, and if letting on that they knew this, would keep them from finding out who it was, then what should be the limits of their investigation?

Should they shrug and say, Oh, well, they talked to a reporter, so I guess we can't touch them? Does talking to a reporter offer automatic immunity from other elements of the law, especially as regards terrorism?

Should they arrest everyone they even think the person(s) may have had contact with and sort the rest out later?

Or should they work under the radar to ferret the guy(s) out so they can't put any more terrorist investigations in jeopardy?

 

[Squibbs]

Everything else aside, some simple questions:

If the administration suspected that someone was compromising their fight against terrorist groups targeting the US, and if letting on that they knew this, would keep them from finding out who it was, then what should be the limits of their investigation?

Should they shrug and say, Oh, well, they talked to a reporter, so I guess we can't touch them? Does talking to a reporter offer automatic immunity from other elements of the law, especially as regards terrorism?

Should they arrest everyone they even think the person(s) may have had contact with and sort the rest out later?

Or should they work under the radar to ferret the guy(s) out so they can't put any more terrorist investigations in jeopardy?

Easy.

Is the man in charge black or white?

 

[CHNOPS]

Easy.

Is the man in charge black or white?

Both!