Toni Locy

Reporters refusing to name sources hardly qualifies as news any more, being close to as ordinary as a dog biting a man. Nonetheless, I came across a story that caught my attention, even if it is barely newsworthy.

 While perusing the Saturday edition of The Wall Street Journal, I came across a story that mentioned the case of Ms. Locy. Apparently, she had  information relevant to a lawsuit filed by Dr. Steven Hatfil in which he alleged an attempt by government agents to ruin him professionally and without cause through blackening his name. Ms. Locy was ordered by the US District Court Judge hearing the case to disclose her sources. She refused to obey the court’s order. The judge held her in contempt on March 7th. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/federal-judge-holds-anthrax-reporter-in.php

 On March 11th, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the enforcement of the order pending appeal. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/federal-appeals-court-blocks-contempt.php

Now, whatever is going to happen in that case will happen without my involvement, so I will let the judges and lawyers involved in the case do their jobs and await the outcome along with everyone else.

But I do have several questions raised by the stories.

My first question is where in Heaven’s name did the notion that a journalist should be free from responding to legal process and come to court to testify in a lawsuit originate? That notion is certainly not supported by the relevant portions of The Federalist Papers or in the text of the federal Constitution itself.

Here are links to those few  Federalist Papers which mention the Freedom of the Press.

 No. 41  http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed41.htm

No. 84  hthttp://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed41.htmtp://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed84.htm

No. 85  http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed85.htm

If the you read the language both of The Federalist Papers and of the First Amendment to the federal constitution says that the “Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the  press….”  The use of the qualifying article “the” strongly suggests that the freedom both of speech and of the press is not an absolute, but rather suggests that the existing freedoms of speech and of the press should continue. Nothing in the texts supports such a broad reading of the First Amendment. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Secondly, if a sitting president can be forced to come testify in a civil lawsuit, doesn’t it seem awfully odd to think that a journalist can avoid testifying in a civil law suit?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones  The only rational explanation for such a position is that the person asserting it must view the press as being more important in the great scheme of things than a mere President of the United States? Scary.

Finally, if in fact the plaintiff has been as wronged as he alleges, doesn’t common decency demand that the relevant facts be disclosed in the court proceedings? Or is the welfare of one plaintiff pale in comparison to the importance of the news media? Are members of the Fourth Estate exempted from common decency as well as civil process?  Inquiring minds want to know.