Originally published November 29 2005
CIA leak case raises serious questions about the ethics of journalism
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sent to jail for protecting a source, prompting an outcry from the media that has led to legislation affording a legal shield to journalists in similar situations.
But as many major scandals do, the "Plamegate" affair has sprouted hydra-heads of side scandals -- and none so interesting as the question of the role journalists have played in outing Valerie Plame.
The New York Times reporter Judith Miller controversially went to jail for her refusal to reveal that she talked to Libby about Plame's husband.
And if any reporter made an agreement with a White House staff member to be the outlet for illegally revealing Plame's name, the special prosecutor could indict that journalist for conspiring to commit a crime, or name the reporter as an unindicted co-conspirator.
The treatment of journalists connected to Plamegate should send a cold chill through internet publishers of any stripe, and worry those of us intent on fully transporting democratic principles to the online world.
(Currently, the Justice Department relies on internal guidelines to inform prosecutorial discretion in subpoenaing reporters.)
But Congress isn't likely to extend the narrow legal protections that mainstream journalists want to bloggers, message-board posters and mailing-list participants.
In 2003, Diebold Election Systems used the notice and takedown procedures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get a two-week suspension on the publication of embarrassing e-mails that showed the company knew its e-voting machines were unreliable.
Last year, Apple Computer subpoenaed three bloggers to learn their confidential source for news about the computer company's latest product under development.
And just this summer, Cisco Systems sued security researcher Michael Lynn (also my client) for disclosing that older versions of the company's routers had exploitable security flaws.
These cases suggest that protection for free speech is stymied by both the technical nature of information and the technological means through which it can be reported.
This is the best way for a digital-age democracy to separate wrongdoers from the rest of us.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml