Ashcroft Jails Journalist in Reversal of Federal Policy

[Laurel]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/july01/2001-07-27-ashcroft-journalists-usat.htm

John Ashcroft, sworn enemy of Free Speech, has reversed a Federal policy that's been in place since 1973 and jailed a journalist for refusing to turn over her personal notes.

These are the most interesting points to me:

- The journalist is investigating a high-profile murder case that took place in Texas while Bush was the governor.

- Ashcroft doesn't just want to SEE her notes - he wants her to turn over ALL originals and ALL copies of ALL of her notes. This is unprecedented, and raises questions about exactly what the Justice Department is trying to accomplish.

- The courtroom action where she was jailed was closed to the public, and even the name of the judge who took the action at the request of Ashcroft has been sealed by the Justice Department. This, again, is unprecedented in this type of case.

The last time a journalist was jailed by the Justice Department was in 1991 when Bush's father was in the White House.

For anyone who believes that Free Speech and Freedom of the Press (anyone remember Watergate?) are two of the most important components of a Free society, this case - and this Justice Department - should scare the shit out of you.

 

[MinkSoul]

Whoosshhh...

and there it goes.... another right whisked away.... right before our very eyes....



ain't life...... interesting?

 

[Siren]

This does scare the shit out of me

 

[Bluenose]

Doesn't Surprise Me

It doesn't surprise me that the government does thing like this, we are suppose to live in democratic countries but this is the second case I've seen this summer of the government changing laws to benefit themselves or someone.

 

[Never]

Never <- Is surpisingly unshocked.

 

[WriterDom]

Justice Department spokesman Chris Watney declined to discuss the case. But, speaking generally, she said that Ashcroft's approval was not needed if a person was not considered a journalist by prosecutors.



Lets don't bother getting the facts first, just go ahead and burn Ashcroft at the stake

 

[Never]

Media attorneys say she falls within the legal definition of a journalist. "She stands in the same shoes as any television or newspaper reporter," says media attorney Robert Lystad, who represents the Society of Professional Journalists. "She's exactly the type of reporter or book author who shouldn't be harassed into turning over her notes."

If we don't agree with WriterDom then we must of not read the article, and 'gotten the facts' is that it?

 

[Laurel]

Lets don't bother getting the facts first, just go ahead and burn Ashcroft at the stake

A couple things:

1) This person is clearly a journalist, and the Justice Department quote is simply a red herring. He could just as easily have said that Ashcroft doesn't need to be involved if the person has two heads and is from Mars. The way I read the quote, in fact, is that it confirms that Ashcroft WAS directly involved. This person IS a journalist, THEREFORE Ashcroft had to be involved.

2) If Janet Reno's spokesperson says that she wasn't involved in Waco, would you believe that?

It's always fun to have a little disagreement with Ashcroft supporters about whether Free Speech should be illegal or not.

 

[WriterDom]

Hey Hey Reno J
how many kids
did you kill today

 

[miles]

It's always fun to have a little disagreement with Ashcroft supporters about whether Free Speech should be illegal or not

For those of you who hold freedom of speech so close to your heart, how do you feel about hate speech and hate crimes?

Or burning the flag?

 

[Never]

Well.
I have no problem with hate speech.
I don't mind if people burn the flag.

Hate crimes? I'm going to say 'very bad' on that one miles, though there are different levels of hate crimes. Meaning, writing 'nigger' on someone's car is one thing and killing someone because they're Asian is another.

Anymore questions?

 

[miles]

If she's a journalist, I'm a jet pilot

Leggett, 33, a part-time writing teacher at the University of Houston, does not have a contract for her book and has not published any articles, although she has discussed publishing a story on the case with several Texas magazines


Well, maybe she wants to be a journalist.

 

[Nogard]

Writer Dom is back. Warm up the gas furnaces

 

[miles]

Never

Sure, I get it.

According to your logic saying it is okay. Thinking it is not.

First, to make a distinction between crimes based on motive is nonsense and an injustice. People who are victims of violence or vandalism are equally injured, whether the criminal's motives are greed, malice or prejudice.

No matter how obnoxious or offensive we find certain speech, we can't allow the government to police it. If they police speech, they police thought, and that is the essence of the totalitarian philosophy.

Does the spilled blood of a murdered minority bleed any redder than mine? Hate crime legislation diminishes the severity of crimes against non-minorities. What a slap at the victims! It's another lame attempt to undo the wrongs of the past through warm & fuzzy laws.

 

[Never]

I don't remember WriterDom ever leaving..

 

[Never]

Miles, I'm not quite sure what post you read but it wasn't mine. So take a deep breath and let's explore your answer.

Miles:
"According to your logic saying it is okay. Thinking it is not."
You never asked me what I thought about what people can, or can't, think - please, show me where in my response I even mentioned what people can and can't think?
Besides, how can I know what people are thinking? I can only know what they tell me they're thinking

Miles:
"First, to make a distinction between crimes based on motive is nonsense and an injustice. People who are victims of violence or vandalism are equally injured, whether the criminal's motives are greed, malice or prejudice."
Okay, I see your point, but that has noting to do with what I wrote about.

Miles:
"No matter how obnoxious or offensive we find certain speech, we can't allow the government to police it. If they police speech, they police thought, and that is the essence of the totalitarian philosophy."
I agree with that - and that's what I said, sooo, why are you telling me this?

Miles:
"Does the spilled blood of a murdered minority bleed any redder than mine? Hate crime legislation diminishes the severity of crimes against non-minorities. What a slap at the victims! It's another lame attempt to undo the wrongs of the past through warm & fuzzy laws."
And now I have no idea what this has to do with this thread but, okay, if you say so. Your point?

I'll state it again.
I don't mind flag burning.
I don't mind hate speech.
But hate crimes are very bad.
Please, show me what you disagree with in my statements and I'd be happy to have an argument with you.

 

[WriterDom]

So if we had hate crimes could I have Nogard arrested?

Or do we wait till he stalks me down and kills me for not sharing his implied opinions (I say implied cause he rarely has anything to add other than I'm Hitler or crazy).

 

[lavender]

Re: Never

 

[Nogard]

You're finally beginning to figure it out. Congrats. get mental health councilling and we'll all sleep better

 

[WriterDom]

You're finally beginning to figure it out. Congrats. get mental health councilling and we'll all sleep better

I'm affecting your sleep? It's just a bulletin board, dude. Try a little tolerance.
And perhaps some meditation and exercise.

 

[Siren]

Let me see if I understand this....you can only be a legit journalist for the use

 

[Weevil]

For those of you who hold freedom of speech so close to your heart, how do you feel about hate speech and hate crimes?

Or burning the flag?

I'm pro-flag burning but I typically tend to be against Hate Crimes.

 

[Nogard]

Crimes or talk? I disagree with flag burning from a personal standpoint but if people want to do it so be it. It hey want to talk hate, that is certainly their priviledge, but if they start acting out their feelings, then it is time for the authorities to step in. Stichs and stones etc.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Never

Miles I don't think you were thinking when you made this statement. The motive is incredibly important in the criminal justice field for law. This is why we have the differences in types of murders/homicides. The motive/mens rea requirement is about the requisite intent of the party before they committed the crime.

The existance of A motive is definitely important in determining premeditation or whether manslaughter is voluntary or involuntary, but...

What difference does what the motive is have on the severity of the crime.

If I plot to do in my grandparents for their inheritance, how is that motive and premeditation different than if I plot do do in my neighbors because I hate them.

Is the death of a black man more or less a "crime of passion" because a redneck lost his temper than the death of a wife's lover because her husband walked in on them? Is the death of the olover somehow a more "passionate " crime because the husband used a racial epithet before pulling the trigger?

The presence or lack of a motive is important, but the exact nature of the motive is totally irrelevant -- or should be. Otherwise, there is not "equal protection under the law" because some motives are more heinous than others.

 

[christo]

What exactly is the definition of a journalist? My definition is this--any citizen of the United State should be protected by the First Amendment. We ALL are journalists, potentially if not professionally, protected by freedom of the press as surely as Dan Rather or Rush Limbaugh. To say that someone "does not meet the definition of journalist" is doublespeak bullshit. What, you need a White House press pass to have your First Amendment rights, or a book contract from Random House? Bull-fucking-shit. Every citizen has the right to ask questions, to conduct research, to express our opinions. The reporter in question conducted her own independent investigation, she didn't steal someone else's information.

The good news is that Ms. Leggett can "only" be incarcerated for 18 months. Every freedom-loving person in this country should be screaming bloody murder to make sure that Texas releases her immediately. If she refuses to turn over her notes, then what? Thumbscrews?