[IP] Time Inc. Statement on Handing Over Documents
Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard Forno <rforno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 30, 2005 9:47:26 PM EDT
To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Time Inc. Statement on Handing Over Documents
Time Inc. Statement on Handing Over Documents
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30text-time.html?
pagewanted=print
Following is a statement from Norman Pearlstine, Editor in Chief of Time
Inc., regarding the decision to hand over documents in the
investigation of
the leak of a C.I.A. operative's name.
"The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, including the
right to
gather information of interest to the public and, where necessary, to
protect the confidentiality of sources.
Time Inc. believes in that guarantee. That is why we have supported
from the
outset the efforts of Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in resisting
the
Special Counsel's attempts to obtain information regarding Mr. Cooper's
confidential sources. Time Inc. and Mr. Cooper have fought this case
all the
way from the district court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In this particular case, where national security and the role of a grand
jury have been at issue, the Supreme Court chose to let stand the
district
court's order requiring Time Inc. and Mr. Cooper to comply with the
Special
Counsel's subpoenas. It did so after the United States Court of
Appeals for
the District of Columbia affirmed that order.
In declining to review the important issues presented by this case, we
believe that the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that
will
have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of
information that is so necessary in a democratic society. It may also
encourage excesses by overzealous prosecutors.
It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has left uncertain what
protections
the First Amendment and the federal common law provide journalists
and their
confidential sources.
It is also worth noting that many foreign governments, including China,
Venezuela, and Cameroon, to name a few, refer to U.S. contempt
rulings when
seeking to justify their own restrictive press laws.
Despite these concerns, Time Inc. shall deliver the subpoenaed
records to
the Special Counsel in accordance with its duties under the law. The
same
Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires
obedience to
final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and
judgments.
That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no
immunity. The
innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even Presidents have
followed
orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation
lives by
the rule of law and that none of us is above it.
We believe that our decision to provide the Special Prosecutor with the
subpoenaed records obviates the need for Matt Cooper to testify and
certainly removes any justification for incarceration.
Time Inc.'s decision doesn't represent a change in our philosophy,
nor does
it reflect a departure from our belief in the need for confidential
sources.
It does reflect a response to a profound departure from the practice of
federal prosecutors when this case is compared with other landmark cases
involving confidentiality over the past 30 years. Since the days of
Attorney
General John Mitchell, the Justice Department has sought confidential
sources from reporters as a last resort, not as an easy option. Neither
Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, nor Judge John Sirica
sought to force the Washington Post or its reporters to reveal the
identity
of "Deep Throat," the prized confidential source.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/