Recently the New York Times published "Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Times Reporter Over Refusal to Identify Source" by Adam Liptak, an article chronicling the recent developments in James Risen's fight to maintain the confidentiality of a source in the face of possible imprisonment for contempt of court. James Risen cited information from a confidential source as his source of information about Operation Merlin which he described in a chapter in his 2006 book "State of War". Operation Merlin was a CIA operation to sabotage Iran's nuclear program by covertly supplying Iran with faulty schematics via a Russian scientist. Mr. Risen has been ordered to testify as to the identity of the source of information used in his book to confirm suspicions that the source was Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA official.
Perhaps more interesting than the story itself is the large variety of opinions provided by readers in the comments section of the digital copy of the article published on the Times website nytimes.com. It would seem a majority of the comments are in support of Mr. Risen or potentially more in support of the ideal for which he fights; freedom of the press. Many people ardently believe in this principle. That for a free press in a democratic society to accurately inform the citizenry it must have the ability to protect sources of information from being prosecuted, persecuted, even attacked over their actions in providing controversial or classified information to the news media and thereby the public. Given the current administration's record for persecution of whistleblowers and investigative journalists, the need to protect information sources has never been more prudent. How can we have a responsibly informed citizenry when the consequences of providing controversial information are so high, imprisonment on espionage charges or more gruesome ends.
However, some people do not feel the same as Mr. Risen on this topic. There seems to be a significant minority trending with the mindset to disagree with him. They feel that 1st Amendment rights do not provided journalist with any extra rights when it comes to protecting others from criminal prosecution. There are some facts to support this opinion. Before being given access to classified information, whistleblowers like Edward Snowden took an oath to not disseminate the information which has been left in there charge. To leak classified government documents is a crime of the highest order, potentially treasonous in some context. These are government secrets that are being stolen and dispersed to whom the source feels appropriate, perhaps in less worthy motive then freedom of information. Certainly there is context to which these actions are a clear threat to national security in the most literal meaning of the term, the laws are clearly justified.
The footing of this case stands upon the crest of a slippery slope. To set the president that a reporter may refuse to testify about the criminal actions of a third party on the merits of sustaining his own journalistic integrity may be dangerous. Where do we draw the line that the dissemination of information overrides the rule of law? However, if we allow our government to control the flow of information to their own ends our cherished democracy will soon resemble a classical oligarchy. To ensure the preservation of a healthy democratic society the citizenry have a responsible to inform themselves. To this end, the press must be free to publish information needed to satisfy this responsibility. To provide the confidence needed to attain this information, reporters must have the ability, the right to protect the identities of their sources. To allow these rights to be stripped away is to allow our democracy to be stripped away in whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment