PMO to Balad: We will thwart anti-Israel activity even if legal
By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent
The Prime Minister's Office has sent a letter to the editor of the publication of the predominantly Arab party Balad saying it would combat the activity of any group or individual seeking to harm Israel's "Jewish or democratic character," even if that activity was legal.
"The Shin Bet security service will thwart the activity of any group or individual seeking to harm the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel, even if such activity is sanctioned by the law," read the letter, sent by the Prime Minister's Office on behalf of the Shin Bet to editor Ala Hlehel.
The letter, published Friday, also said that the Shin Bet would fulfill this task with the "force of the principle of a democracy that defends itself."
Hlehel petitioned the PMO last week following media released information of a closed-door meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and head of the Shin Bet, Yuval Diskin, in which the latter reportedly described Israel's Arab population as a "strategic threat" to the prime minister.
The two reportedly discussed four documents drafted by groups representing Israel's Arab population which call for a change in Israel's character: "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel," by the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, the Musawa oganization's "Ten Point Document," the "Democratic Constitution," by the Adala Center, and the yet unpublised "Haifa Treaty."
When Hlehel accused the Prime Minister's Office of "attempting to shut mouths," the Shin Bet responded by saying that there was nothing wrong with the formulation of the documents "unless they reflect or encourage subversive activity," and that the Shin Bet's activity includes foiling such activity on the part of various groups "even if their activity utilizes democratic tools."
Hlehel told Haaretz on Friday that the Shin Bet's response violates the law that regulates its activity, constitutes a blatant breach of its authority, and proves that the "era of military rule imposed upon Arab citizens never ended."
"The Shin Bet is supposed to defense the security of the country, not prevent democratic discussions over the nature of the state... this is very grave and affects all citizens of the state, not just the Arabs," he added.
Showing posts with label free press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free press. Show all posts
Friday, March 16, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Pentagon vs. Press Freedom
Jan 22, 2007)
By Norman Solomon
We often hear that the Pentagon exists to defend our freedoms. But the Pentagon is moving against press freedom.
Not long ago, journalist Sarah Olson received a subpoena to testify in early February in the court-martial of U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada, who now faces prosecution for speaking against the Iraq war and refusing to participate in it. Apparently, the commanders at the Pentagon are so eager to punish Watada that they’ve decided to go after reporters who have informed the public about his statements.
People who run wars are notoriously hostile to a free press. They’re quick to praise it -- unless the reporting goes beyond mere stenography for the war-makers and actually engages in journalism that makes the military command uncomfortable.
Evidently, that’s why the Pentagon subpoenaed Olson. They want her to testify to authenticate her quotes from Watada -- which is to say, they want to force her into the prosecution of him. “Army lawyers are overreaching when they try to prosecute their case by drafting reporters,” the Los Angeles Times noted in a Jan. 8 editorial.
The newspaper added: “No prosecutor should be able to conscript any reporter into being a deputy by compelling testimony about a statement made by a source -- or go fishing for information beyond what a reporter presents in a story -- unless it’s absolutely vital to protect U.S. citizens from crime or attack. This principle should apply whether or not the source was speaking in confidence, or whether or not the reporter works for a media organization.”
Olson is a freelancer whose reporting on Watada has appeared on the widely read Truthout.org website and has aired on the nationwide public radio program “Making Contact.” (Full disclosure: I was a founder of that program and served as an advisor.) For a number of years, she has been doing the job of a journalist. Now, in its dealings with her, the Pentagon is despicably trying to trample on the First Amendment.
As the LA Times editorialized, “there is something especially chilling about the U.S. military reaching beyond its traditional authority to compel a non-military U.S. citizen engaged in news-gathering to testify in a military court, simply to bolster a court-martial case. ... Sustaining the military subpoena would set a troubling precedent. It’s time for the Army to back off.”
But the Army hasn’t shown any sign of backing off -- despite an outcry from a widening range of eminent journalists, mainstream media institutions and First Amendment groups.
“Trying to force a reporter to testify at a court-martial sends the wrong signal to the media and the military,” said the president of the Military Reporters and Editors organization, James W. Crawley. He commented: “One of the hallmarks of American journalism, as documented in the Bill of Rights and defended by our armed services, is a clear separation of the press and the government. Using journalists to help the military prosecute its case seems like a serious breach of that wall.”
By sending subpoenas to Sarah Olson and to another journalist who has reported on Watada (Gregg Kakesako of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin), the Pentagon is trying to chip away at the proper role of news media.
Two officials of the PEN American Center, a venerable organization that works to protect freedom of expression, put the issue well in a recent letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates: “If Olson and Kakesako respond to these subpoenas by testifying, they will essentially be participating in the prosecution of their source. Reporters should not serve as the investigative arm of the government. Such a role compromises their objectivity and can have chilling effects on the press.”
Writing for Editor & Publisher magazine, Sarah Olson summed up what is at stake: “A member of the press should never be placed in the position of aiding a government prosecution of political speech. This goes against the grain of even the most basic understanding of the First Amendment’s free press guarantees and the expectation of a democracy that relies on a free flow of information and perspectives without fear of censor or retribution.”
And Olson added: “You may ask: Do I want to be sent to prison by the U.S. Army for not cooperating with their prosecution of Lieutenant Watada? My answer: Absolutely not. You may also ask: Would I rather contribute to the prosecution of a news source for sharing newsworthy perspectives on an affair of national concern? That is the question I wholly object to having before me in the first place.”
The Pentagon’s attack on journalism is an attack on the First Amendment -- and an attempt to drive a wedge between journalists and dissenters in the military. Resistance is essential for democracy.
By Norman Solomon
We often hear that the Pentagon exists to defend our freedoms. But the Pentagon is moving against press freedom.
Not long ago, journalist Sarah Olson received a subpoena to testify in early February in the court-martial of U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada, who now faces prosecution for speaking against the Iraq war and refusing to participate in it. Apparently, the commanders at the Pentagon are so eager to punish Watada that they’ve decided to go after reporters who have informed the public about his statements.
People who run wars are notoriously hostile to a free press. They’re quick to praise it -- unless the reporting goes beyond mere stenography for the war-makers and actually engages in journalism that makes the military command uncomfortable.
Evidently, that’s why the Pentagon subpoenaed Olson. They want her to testify to authenticate her quotes from Watada -- which is to say, they want to force her into the prosecution of him. “Army lawyers are overreaching when they try to prosecute their case by drafting reporters,” the Los Angeles Times noted in a Jan. 8 editorial.
The newspaper added: “No prosecutor should be able to conscript any reporter into being a deputy by compelling testimony about a statement made by a source -- or go fishing for information beyond what a reporter presents in a story -- unless it’s absolutely vital to protect U.S. citizens from crime or attack. This principle should apply whether or not the source was speaking in confidence, or whether or not the reporter works for a media organization.”
Olson is a freelancer whose reporting on Watada has appeared on the widely read Truthout.org website and has aired on the nationwide public radio program “Making Contact.” (Full disclosure: I was a founder of that program and served as an advisor.) For a number of years, she has been doing the job of a journalist. Now, in its dealings with her, the Pentagon is despicably trying to trample on the First Amendment.
As the LA Times editorialized, “there is something especially chilling about the U.S. military reaching beyond its traditional authority to compel a non-military U.S. citizen engaged in news-gathering to testify in a military court, simply to bolster a court-martial case. ... Sustaining the military subpoena would set a troubling precedent. It’s time for the Army to back off.”
But the Army hasn’t shown any sign of backing off -- despite an outcry from a widening range of eminent journalists, mainstream media institutions and First Amendment groups.
“Trying to force a reporter to testify at a court-martial sends the wrong signal to the media and the military,” said the president of the Military Reporters and Editors organization, James W. Crawley. He commented: “One of the hallmarks of American journalism, as documented in the Bill of Rights and defended by our armed services, is a clear separation of the press and the government. Using journalists to help the military prosecute its case seems like a serious breach of that wall.”
By sending subpoenas to Sarah Olson and to another journalist who has reported on Watada (Gregg Kakesako of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin), the Pentagon is trying to chip away at the proper role of news media.
Two officials of the PEN American Center, a venerable organization that works to protect freedom of expression, put the issue well in a recent letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates: “If Olson and Kakesako respond to these subpoenas by testifying, they will essentially be participating in the prosecution of their source. Reporters should not serve as the investigative arm of the government. Such a role compromises their objectivity and can have chilling effects on the press.”
Writing for Editor & Publisher magazine, Sarah Olson summed up what is at stake: “A member of the press should never be placed in the position of aiding a government prosecution of political speech. This goes against the grain of even the most basic understanding of the First Amendment’s free press guarantees and the expectation of a democracy that relies on a free flow of information and perspectives without fear of censor or retribution.”
And Olson added: “You may ask: Do I want to be sent to prison by the U.S. Army for not cooperating with their prosecution of Lieutenant Watada? My answer: Absolutely not. You may also ask: Would I rather contribute to the prosecution of a news source for sharing newsworthy perspectives on an affair of national concern? That is the question I wholly object to having before me in the first place.”
The Pentagon’s attack on journalism is an attack on the First Amendment -- and an attempt to drive a wedge between journalists and dissenters in the military. Resistance is essential for democracy.
Friday, December 22, 2006
S-ICE: Another Assault On Freedom of Speech and Poaching in FBI Territory
Posted on Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 at 10:08:24 AM EST
“Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” - Thomas Jefferson
After reviewing the story written by Hector Carreon of La Voz de Aztlan about his encounter with DHS special agents on December 23, 2005 at his residence, in the Los Angeles, CA area I concluded that we had two issues with the Hector Carreon’s case: DHS’ attempt to intimidate a journalist and news reporter for exercising his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and secondly, DHS investigating a suspected terrorist organization, which it is not an enforcement action within the DHS jurisdiction. This is FBI's territory. Although Mr. Carreon did not identify the DHS special agents by name or the agency, I assume the agents were from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Los Angeles ICE District Office. It is possible the agents asked Mr. Carreon not to publish their name or the agency they worked for “under the name of national security.”
Mr. Hector Carreon did not have to give up his Constitutional Rights that easy. What he did in essence was giving our U.S. government consent to search his house and allow DHS to obtain copies of all of La Voz de Aztlan subscribers’ personal data.
If I were the FBI-SAC Los Angeles after reading Mr. Carreon’s narrative, I would pick-up the phone and make some calls not only to his/her Los Angeles ICE counterpart but to the FBI Director. In summary, DHS and assuming ICE was involved, they were basically poaching into FBI exclusive territory: investigations of terrorist organizations within the USA.
Now, if there is such alleged coordination between DHS-ICE and the FBI’s Joint Terrorist Task Force, why was not an FBI agent present during Mr. Carreon’s consented search of his residence? One more thing, let’s assume that the FBI was already conducting an investigation on Mr. Carreon and his La Voz de Aztlan for possible terrorist activities, what DHS did in essence was to obstruct and sabotage an FBI investigation. This of course does not imply by any means that Mr. Carreon and his organization is connected with any terrorist group.
I don’t know if the above case had something to do with the sudden retirement of the Los Angeles ICE SAC Loraine Brown.
The Hector Carreon case is similar to my co-publisher Bill Conroy’s case, but the government’s intention and motives were not the same. In the Conroy’s case the DHS-OPR goons only wanted to intimidate him and to tell his bosses about his Narco News stories. On the other hand, the Carreon case was a pure “terrorist related investigation,” and of course to intimidate him and give him a "warning" about his stories exposing government corruption in the USA and abroad.
The Hector Carreon Story
DHS: "La Voz de Aztlan has raised eyebrows in Washington" by Hector Carreon - La Voz de Aztlan - Los Angeles, Alta California, January 12, 2006 - (ACN)
On the morning of December 22, 2005, I noticed a business card that was left at the door of my home. The card was from the US Department of Homeland Security and had a handwritten note that said "Please call". That afternoon I called Los Angeles and spoke with the special agent whose name was on the card. The DHS agent said they wanted to speak to me about "The Aztlan Movement" and my organization. I answered, "Do you mean La Voz de Aztlan?" I added, "La Voz de Aztlan is a news and information service." The special agent wanted to come to my home to speak to me personally on the following day. We made a 8:30 a.m. appointment.
The knock on my door came at precisely 8:30 a.m. on December 23, 2005 as my family was making final preparations for Christmas Day. On the other side of my glass door were two gentlemen dressed in professional business suits. I opened the door and we introduced each other. I escorted them to my living room and introduced the two special agents to two of my family members that were present. We all sat down and the lead government agent began the conversation.
Among the first statements said by the special agent in charge was, "La Voz de Aztlan has raised eyebrows in Washington". He proceeded to ask numerous questions about Aztlan. He said that he was not from the area and wanted to know as much as possible about the "Aztlan Movement" and my organization. I reiterated that "La Voz de Aztlan" is not an organization per se but merely an Internet news service for Mexican and Mexican-Americans in the US Southwest and in Mexico. I added that La Voz de Aztlan, however, had attracted readership and subscriber from around the globe.
He asked what Aztlan meant to me. I answered that Aztlan has many levels of meaning. I said that "Aztlan" in the name of our news publication is mostly symbolic. I gave both special agents the historic and cultural basis for "Aztlan" . I mentioned that there exists historical Mexica documents and old Spanish maps that point to an actual region called "Aztlan" that existed in pre-Columbian times near the "four corners" area of the US Southwest. I mentioned that according to ancient Mexica (Aztec) lore, they were to migrate south to establish the great city of Tenochtitlan (present day Mexico City) at a place where they were to see a "sign". The sign would be "An eagle on top of a cactus with a serpent in its beak". One of the special agents immediately recognized this "sign" as being part of the Mexican flag.
At this point the conversation turned into "Aztlan" being a separatist organization and whether I believed that the Southwest should separate from Washington and become part of Mexico. I said that there are many youths of Mexican descent that believe in such a possibility but that my personal beliefs are more in line with those of Professor Armando Navarro of the University of California and of Professor Charles Truxillo of the University of New Mexico. The special agent asked me whether I believed in the armed and violent overthrow of the US government. I answered "no" and that I believed in making social and political changes through the "ballot box".
The lead special agent also asked questions concerning a news report we had on a legendary Iraqi sniper that our troops have nicknamed "Juba". The report included a link to a video on the server of "The Internet Archive" at www.archive.org. "The Internet Archive" is funded by the US Library of Congress but the video appears to have been produced by Al-Queda. We have now removed two reports on "Juba" because of the concerns communicated to us by the DHS.
There were numerous other questions concerning my education, employment and military record with the US Army 2nd Armored Division. They asked what kind of weapons I own and where in the house I kept them. They asked whether I had friends and who were my associates. They asked about Ernesto Cienfuegos, Roberto Cruz and my association with Dr. Armando Navarro. They also asked how I got along with my neighbors.
At about this point, the second special agent got up and approached me with a clip board and a document. He requested that I print my name on a line at the top and sign at the bottom. I ask what it was for and he answered that it was permission for them to examine my computer. All this time the special agent in charge was in constant radio communication with someone at a remote location. I had to decide on the spot whether to grant permission or insist on a court warrant. I decided that it would be the best course to continue to fully cooperate with the federal agents and I sign the document. Right after I signed, the lead agent radioed someone and within five minutes two more special agents arrived to my home with suitcases of electronic equipment. The lead agent asked me to escort them to my computer room where they spent two hours copying the hard disk of my computer. I do not know what else they did down there because I was kept busy by the other two agents upstairs answering additional questions.
It was clear to me that the Department of Homeland Security had conducted previous surveillance and investigations because they already had much information on myself and our news publication "La Voz de Aztlan". The special agent in charge gave me the distinct impression that they were acting on high level orders from Washington. We suspect Congressman Tom Tancredo, the AIPAC or both. We are presently preparing a "congressional inquiry" in an attempt to find out who was behind this frightening invasion of privacy and government action that has "chilled" our constitutional freedom of speech and of the press.
http://www.aztlan.net/homeland_security_incident.h tm
REFERENCES
DHS eyes House members Agent who spoke with rep suspended - Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer - San Bernardino County Sun Article - 09/27/2006
Congressmen who visit the U.S.-Mexico border unannounced are being monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, and at least one U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent has been suspended for speaking to a congressman without first getting supervisory clearance, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.
Congressional members interviewed by the newspaper said they were unaware until recently that Border Patrol agents were required to file Significant Incident Reports - normally used for shootings and other serious border incidents - when congressional members made unannounced visits in the summer along the U.S.-Mexico border.
A second document obtained by the paper reveals that one agent was suspended for 10 days without pay for speaking with Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who made an unannounced visit to the border in May.
"Preventing Congress from speaking freely to federal employees violates at least two federal statutes, and agents are fearful of telling the truth," said King, who recounted several visits to the Mexican border when Border Patrol agents would not speak with him for fear of reprisal.
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_4401381
The National Alliance for Human Rights
The Dr. Armando Navarro mentioned in the Hector Carreon's search incident is coordinator of the National Alliance for Human Rights, a network of leaders, activists, scholars and organizations committed to the promotion of human rights, social justice and political empowerment of the Latino community in the United States. Since its formation in the year 2000, the National Alliance for Human Rights has been at the forefront of issues affecting Latinos. Armando Navarro, Coordinator, (951) 333-6819
http://www.nationalallianceforhumanrights.org/
homeland security going after journalist Greg Palast reposter Greg Palast is facing a criminal complaint from the Department of Homeland Security stemming from his filming the Hurricane Katrina investigation for Link TV and Democracy Now.
Palast, Pascarella Face Homeland Security Charges Published by Greg Palast September 7th, 2006 in Articles by Zach Roberts
Yes, the rumor's true. Greg Palast is facing a criminal complaint from the Department of Homeland Security stemming from his filming the Hurricane Katrina investigation for Link TV and Democracy Now. The film's producer, Matt Pascarella, is also facing the legal wrath of Big Brother.
It appears the complaint is about filming a sensitive national security site owned by Exxon petroleum. It seems that photographing major Bush donors is now a federal offense.
Reached at an undisclosed location, Palast says, "Let's not get over-excited. They haven't measured us for our orange suits yet."
During questioning by Homeland Security, Palast asked, "Hey, aren't you supposed to be looking for Osama? Or for guys with exploding shoes? ... We're journalists." At Palast's request, Homeland Security confirmed that Louisiana is, indeed, still part of the USA but did not respond when asked if the First Amendment applies there.
Watch part one and part two of Palast and Pascarella's film. (In association with BigNoise Films) BigNoise Videographer Jaqui Soohen has not been charged http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/345676.sh tml
Free Political Expression Is Protected by the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, protects the right of political expression of citizens and citizen groups. The First Amendment provides that:
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." This Amendment was incorporated in our Constitution, at the urging of James Madison, to protect "indispensable democratic freedoms."
Freedom of speech and association were viewed by the Framers of the Constitution as essential to democracy. As the courts have explained:
(i)f popular elections form the essence of republican government, free discourse and political activity formed the prerequisite for popular elections.
Thus, "freedom of speech plays a fundamental role in a democracy. . . [I]t 'is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom.'"
The Supreme Court has held, therefore, that political expression is "at the core of our electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms."
[T]he First Amendment right to 'speak one's mind . . . on all public institutions' includes the right to engage in "'vigorous advocacy' no less than 'abstract discussion.'" Advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates for federal office is no less entitled to protection under the First Amendment than the discussion of political policy generally or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation.
Thus, the Court has concluded that "it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee [of the First Amendment] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."
To date, the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have vigorously protected the First Amendment right of citizens and citizens' groups to free political expression. The seminal case is Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976, which struck down, on First Amendment grounds, many of the speech limiting provisions of the post-Watergate amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Other important decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting free political expression and association are NCPAC v. Federal Election Commission, Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, and Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/missionstatement .html
By Miguel Contreras,
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
24 states back Chronicle reporters facing jail
24 states back Chronicle reporters facing jail over steroids story
- Sabin Russell, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, December 11, 2006
(12-11) 21:47 PST -- Twenty four states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, legal scholars and a slew of news organizations have filed court briefs in support of two Chronicle reporters facing jail for refusing to divulge who leaked to them transcripts of grand jury testimony in the investigation of steroids supplied to Major League Baseball players.
New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer filed the "friend of the court" brief Thursday at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was also signed by his counterparts from the other states, including California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
They argued that state laws protecting reporters in most instances from revealing their confidential sources could be rendered "meaningless" by a lesser federal standard. Before a federal court could require reporters to give up their sources, the states contend, it must show that "the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in confidentiality.''
Reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada, Lance Williams and the Chronicle are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for Northern California, which held the pair in contempt of court for refusing to disclose how they obtained the grand jury transcripts. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White has sentenced them to up to 18 months in prison, but they remain free while the appeals court considers the case.
In a separate filing, 36 news organizations including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post; broadcasters NBC, CBS, ABC and NPR; and a variety of publishing companies, journalism organizations and industry trade groups also called on the appeals court to reverse the decision.
The signatories collectively argued that "the district court's decision will inhibit their ability to report upon matters of public concern.''
Citing a 1993 9th Circuit court case that cited the work of Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, they wrote that "the investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle's reporters into steroid use by professional athletes involved many of the same methods used by Woodward and Bernstein to investigate the Watergate break-in. Both investigations revolved around federal grand jury probes into technically minor crimes that implicated misconduct with far broader significance to the public."
Journalism based on "so-called 'leaks' of information from confidential sources,'' they continued, "has produced some of the most important and celebrated news reporting in American history."
The news organizations said that the penalties imposed on Fainaru-Wada and Williams "vastly exceed any previously imposed on any American journalist for declining to identify a source, and represent a clear break from the historical consensus.''
A third brief was filed by six legal scholars with expertise in First Amendment law, who contended that it was the proper role for a federal court to assess independently the proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony. They argued that Judge White declined to strike such a balance, and in so doing, misread earlier court decisions that would have required him to do so. That mistake, the scholars said, is sufficient grounds to reverse the lower court ruling.
URL
- Sabin Russell, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, December 11, 2006
(12-11) 21:47 PST -- Twenty four states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, legal scholars and a slew of news organizations have filed court briefs in support of two Chronicle reporters facing jail for refusing to divulge who leaked to them transcripts of grand jury testimony in the investigation of steroids supplied to Major League Baseball players.
New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer filed the "friend of the court" brief Thursday at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was also signed by his counterparts from the other states, including California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
They argued that state laws protecting reporters in most instances from revealing their confidential sources could be rendered "meaningless" by a lesser federal standard. Before a federal court could require reporters to give up their sources, the states contend, it must show that "the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in confidentiality.''
Reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada, Lance Williams and the Chronicle are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for Northern California, which held the pair in contempt of court for refusing to disclose how they obtained the grand jury transcripts. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White has sentenced them to up to 18 months in prison, but they remain free while the appeals court considers the case.
In a separate filing, 36 news organizations including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post; broadcasters NBC, CBS, ABC and NPR; and a variety of publishing companies, journalism organizations and industry trade groups also called on the appeals court to reverse the decision.
The signatories collectively argued that "the district court's decision will inhibit their ability to report upon matters of public concern.''
Citing a 1993 9th Circuit court case that cited the work of Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, they wrote that "the investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle's reporters into steroid use by professional athletes involved many of the same methods used by Woodward and Bernstein to investigate the Watergate break-in. Both investigations revolved around federal grand jury probes into technically minor crimes that implicated misconduct with far broader significance to the public."
Journalism based on "so-called 'leaks' of information from confidential sources,'' they continued, "has produced some of the most important and celebrated news reporting in American history."
The news organizations said that the penalties imposed on Fainaru-Wada and Williams "vastly exceed any previously imposed on any American journalist for declining to identify a source, and represent a clear break from the historical consensus.''
A third brief was filed by six legal scholars with expertise in First Amendment law, who contended that it was the proper role for a federal court to assess independently the proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony. They argued that Judge White declined to strike such a balance, and in so doing, misread earlier court decisions that would have required him to do so. That mistake, the scholars said, is sufficient grounds to reverse the lower court ruling.
URL
Sunday, November 26, 2006
ASSAULT ON PRESS FREEDOM
In a nation that preaches the virtues of democracy, the United States government has consistently eroded the media's ability to report and, by extension, undermines the ideals it professes to uphold
- William Bennett Turner
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Vladimir Posner, the former Soviet journalist, used to claim the press was freer in the Soviet Union than it was in the United States. This was during Glasnost, as the Soviet empire was disintegrating. Posner explained that the government was dysfunctional, so journalists did not have to worry about the official censors, and the media had not been privatized, so journalists were not accountable to commercial sponsors and advertisers. The result was a kind of anarchic freedom. The press was free, but only for a brief window in time.
The window in America once was open wide and, I thought, permanently so. I used to tell my students on the first day of class that we had the freest speech and press in the world. I can't do that anymore.
In recent years American press freedom has eroded. Many other countries are now ranked freer than the United States -- all of the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and many others. In the most recent survey by Freedom House, an independent American-based organization that assesses liberties around the world, the United States tied for 17th place, with the Bahamas, Estonia, Germany and others.
The international free-press advocates Reporters Without Borders ranked us 53rd, tied with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga. These rankings may not be scientifically valid, for a lot of subjective judgment is involved. But it is sobering to see the consensus that the United States is no longer anywhere near the top.
By virtue of Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. press remains freer than the press elsewhere in a few respects.
First, our law provides significantly greater protection for the press against libel suits, especially by government officials. In many countries, libel is a bullying tool for officials and the powerful to silence dissent. Under the 1964 decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan, insults, parodies and vicious criticism of officials are protected by the First Amendment.
Second, our law protects the press against almost any attempt by government to impose a "prior restraint" on what can be published. That is, the government is not allowed to censor, in advance, information the press may wish to publish. The famous "Pentagon Papers" case in 1971 allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish information about a classified Defense Department study on American involvement in Vietnam, despite the government's contention that publication would impair national security.
Third, perhaps unique in the world, our law protects the advocacy of dangerous, potentially divisive ideas. One can preach overthrow of the government -- domestic "regime change" -- religious hatred, racial discrimination and even criminal activity. Under the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, government may not suppress ideas, however repugnant to most, unless their expression amounts to incitement to imminent unlawful acts.
It also is true that American journalists have not been physically attacked based on what they report, at least at home (although overseas, some have been, and one was beheaded). In some other countries, journalists risk harassment or worse for reporting that offends government officials or powerful figures. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that 47 journalists were murdered last year.
But U.S. press freedom has been slipping away since Sept. 11, 2001. Now that we are in a seemingly permanent "war" on terrorism, the government claims wartime powers that result in restricting press freedom.
The Bush administration has multiplied exponentially the number of documents it classifies as secret, shielding them from public view. It has classified literally millions of documents "top secret," according to reports filed with the National Archives; and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney claims to be exempt from reporting even the numbers of records it brands with the "classified" stamp. (The administration has also tried to retrieve antique classified documents from columnist Jack Anderson's estate, contending that only the government may possess such documents, however old.) Within weeks after 9/11, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, allowing him to veto public release not only of his own presidential papers but those of former President Ronald Reagan, Bush's father and former President Bill Clinton.
The administration also is aggressively pursuing leaks, not with a Nixonian Plumbers unit but by threatening criminal prosecution. Some Republicans in Congress have called for Espionage Act prosecution of the New York Times for publishing revelations about the National Security Agency's monitoring of communications by U.S. citizens and tracking international financial transactions. Bush himself said it was "disgraceful" for the Times to reveal these government activities and publishing the security agency's leak was "helping the enemy."
Pursuing leaks inevitably means pursuing the reporters who received and published the leaks, forcing them to give up confidential sources or telephone records or go to jail. Whatever Judith Miller's motivation and however questionable her arrangement with "Scooter" Libby, she went to jail solely because she refused to reveal communications with her source to the federal grand jury.
Although all states (except Wyoming) legally recognize some sort of privilege for reporters to protect the confidentiality of sources, there is no federal shield law, and the Supreme Court held in 1972 that the First Amendment does not itself serve as one, at least where the information is sought by a federal grand jury investigating a crime.
So reporters who dare to report leaked information that may be classified, or information about testimony before a grand jury -- as Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada did in the BALCO proceeding about steroids in sports -- face subpoenas requiring them to reveal their confidential sources to grand juries or go to jail. And now, Williams and Fainaru-Wada have been ordered to serve as much as 18 months in federal prison, a ruling they have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
So far, the courts have refused to protect subpoenaed reporters no matter how important the information they unearthed or how insignificant the alleged crime. It is true that reporters have never had strong protection against federal subpoenas, but they have hardly ever needed it. Until now.
One of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's first post-Sept. 11 acts was to issue a directive to federal agencies restricting access to government records under the Freedom of Information Act. Ashcroft's directive effectively reversed the presumption of openness and told agencies not to allow inspection of records if there was any arguable basis for withholding the records, assuring officials that Justice Department lawyers would defend them if sued.
Ashcroft's Justice Department also proceeded to round up mostly Muslim immigrants and conduct deportation hearings in secret, not allowing the press or public even to know that any hearing took place, which caused one federal judge to remark that "democracy dies behind closed doors." Ashcroft's moves toward greater secrecy were of a piece with Cheney's refusal when sued under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose even the identity of the corporate executives he met with to determine the administration's energy policy.
Unlike in Sweden, where the right of access to government documents is enshrined in the Constitution, our 1966 information act is solely a legislative creation. Unlike in South Korea, where the Supreme Court decided in 1989 that the right of access to government documents was an integral part of the constitutional freedom of the press, the U.S. Supreme Court held (in a case I lost, Houchins vs. KQED) that there is no such thing as a First Amendment right of access to government information or facilities. Consequently, Americans' right to know what their government is up to is not as well recognized as it is in some other countries.
Nor is government propaganda healthy for a free press or the citizenry. The Bush administration did not advance press freedom by producing and canning favorable "news" stories with fake reporters and peddling them to television stations, or by clandestinely paying friendly columnists for publishing opinions supporting administration policies.
Other recent U.S. government actions also cut into press freedom. The Federal Communications Commission's campaign to stamp out "indecency" and "profanity" in the broadcast media, with congressionally increased fines of $325,000 per violation for allowing a breast to be glimpsed or a dirty word uttered, has intimidated broadcasters.
The campaign may initially have been aimed at Howard Stern, but it puts at risk serious programming like a CBS documentary on 9/11 in which strong language escapes from the lips of firefighters and others in the inferno, "Saving Private Ryan" and even Masterpiece Theater's "Prime Suspect." Other countries like Sweden are bemused by American prissiness about sex and impose no comparable restrictions on their broadcasters.
The press is free in countries that trust the people to make wise decisions when they're fully informed, countries that remain willing to take the risks of dissent, rude discourse, instability and some insecurity, that tolerate eccentricity and unorthodox ideas. The erosion of press freedom in the United States, relative to other nations around the world, is disheartening. We have always had high expectations of freedom, which we now don't live up to.
It is hard to stomach the hypocrisy of claiming to spread democracy abroad while restricting at home the very freedoms that make democracy possible.
William Bennett Turner is a San Francisco lawyer who teaches a course on the First Amendment and the press at UC Berkeley. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
Page E - 1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/26/INGAKMHOCV1.DTL&feed=rss.opinion
- William Bennett Turner
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Vladimir Posner, the former Soviet journalist, used to claim the press was freer in the Soviet Union than it was in the United States. This was during Glasnost, as the Soviet empire was disintegrating. Posner explained that the government was dysfunctional, so journalists did not have to worry about the official censors, and the media had not been privatized, so journalists were not accountable to commercial sponsors and advertisers. The result was a kind of anarchic freedom. The press was free, but only for a brief window in time.
The window in America once was open wide and, I thought, permanently so. I used to tell my students on the first day of class that we had the freest speech and press in the world. I can't do that anymore.
In recent years American press freedom has eroded. Many other countries are now ranked freer than the United States -- all of the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and many others. In the most recent survey by Freedom House, an independent American-based organization that assesses liberties around the world, the United States tied for 17th place, with the Bahamas, Estonia, Germany and others.
The international free-press advocates Reporters Without Borders ranked us 53rd, tied with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga. These rankings may not be scientifically valid, for a lot of subjective judgment is involved. But it is sobering to see the consensus that the United States is no longer anywhere near the top.
By virtue of Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. press remains freer than the press elsewhere in a few respects.
First, our law provides significantly greater protection for the press against libel suits, especially by government officials. In many countries, libel is a bullying tool for officials and the powerful to silence dissent. Under the 1964 decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan, insults, parodies and vicious criticism of officials are protected by the First Amendment.
Second, our law protects the press against almost any attempt by government to impose a "prior restraint" on what can be published. That is, the government is not allowed to censor, in advance, information the press may wish to publish. The famous "Pentagon Papers" case in 1971 allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish information about a classified Defense Department study on American involvement in Vietnam, despite the government's contention that publication would impair national security.
Third, perhaps unique in the world, our law protects the advocacy of dangerous, potentially divisive ideas. One can preach overthrow of the government -- domestic "regime change" -- religious hatred, racial discrimination and even criminal activity. Under the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, government may not suppress ideas, however repugnant to most, unless their expression amounts to incitement to imminent unlawful acts.
It also is true that American journalists have not been physically attacked based on what they report, at least at home (although overseas, some have been, and one was beheaded). In some other countries, journalists risk harassment or worse for reporting that offends government officials or powerful figures. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that 47 journalists were murdered last year.
But U.S. press freedom has been slipping away since Sept. 11, 2001. Now that we are in a seemingly permanent "war" on terrorism, the government claims wartime powers that result in restricting press freedom.
The Bush administration has multiplied exponentially the number of documents it classifies as secret, shielding them from public view. It has classified literally millions of documents "top secret," according to reports filed with the National Archives; and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney claims to be exempt from reporting even the numbers of records it brands with the "classified" stamp. (The administration has also tried to retrieve antique classified documents from columnist Jack Anderson's estate, contending that only the government may possess such documents, however old.) Within weeks after 9/11, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, allowing him to veto public release not only of his own presidential papers but those of former President Ronald Reagan, Bush's father and former President Bill Clinton.
The administration also is aggressively pursuing leaks, not with a Nixonian Plumbers unit but by threatening criminal prosecution. Some Republicans in Congress have called for Espionage Act prosecution of the New York Times for publishing revelations about the National Security Agency's monitoring of communications by U.S. citizens and tracking international financial transactions. Bush himself said it was "disgraceful" for the Times to reveal these government activities and publishing the security agency's leak was "helping the enemy."
Pursuing leaks inevitably means pursuing the reporters who received and published the leaks, forcing them to give up confidential sources or telephone records or go to jail. Whatever Judith Miller's motivation and however questionable her arrangement with "Scooter" Libby, she went to jail solely because she refused to reveal communications with her source to the federal grand jury.
Although all states (except Wyoming) legally recognize some sort of privilege for reporters to protect the confidentiality of sources, there is no federal shield law, and the Supreme Court held in 1972 that the First Amendment does not itself serve as one, at least where the information is sought by a federal grand jury investigating a crime.
So reporters who dare to report leaked information that may be classified, or information about testimony before a grand jury -- as Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada did in the BALCO proceeding about steroids in sports -- face subpoenas requiring them to reveal their confidential sources to grand juries or go to jail. And now, Williams and Fainaru-Wada have been ordered to serve as much as 18 months in federal prison, a ruling they have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
So far, the courts have refused to protect subpoenaed reporters no matter how important the information they unearthed or how insignificant the alleged crime. It is true that reporters have never had strong protection against federal subpoenas, but they have hardly ever needed it. Until now.
One of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's first post-Sept. 11 acts was to issue a directive to federal agencies restricting access to government records under the Freedom of Information Act. Ashcroft's directive effectively reversed the presumption of openness and told agencies not to allow inspection of records if there was any arguable basis for withholding the records, assuring officials that Justice Department lawyers would defend them if sued.
Ashcroft's Justice Department also proceeded to round up mostly Muslim immigrants and conduct deportation hearings in secret, not allowing the press or public even to know that any hearing took place, which caused one federal judge to remark that "democracy dies behind closed doors." Ashcroft's moves toward greater secrecy were of a piece with Cheney's refusal when sued under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose even the identity of the corporate executives he met with to determine the administration's energy policy.
Unlike in Sweden, where the right of access to government documents is enshrined in the Constitution, our 1966 information act is solely a legislative creation. Unlike in South Korea, where the Supreme Court decided in 1989 that the right of access to government documents was an integral part of the constitutional freedom of the press, the U.S. Supreme Court held (in a case I lost, Houchins vs. KQED) that there is no such thing as a First Amendment right of access to government information or facilities. Consequently, Americans' right to know what their government is up to is not as well recognized as it is in some other countries.
Nor is government propaganda healthy for a free press or the citizenry. The Bush administration did not advance press freedom by producing and canning favorable "news" stories with fake reporters and peddling them to television stations, or by clandestinely paying friendly columnists for publishing opinions supporting administration policies.
Other recent U.S. government actions also cut into press freedom. The Federal Communications Commission's campaign to stamp out "indecency" and "profanity" in the broadcast media, with congressionally increased fines of $325,000 per violation for allowing a breast to be glimpsed or a dirty word uttered, has intimidated broadcasters.
The campaign may initially have been aimed at Howard Stern, but it puts at risk serious programming like a CBS documentary on 9/11 in which strong language escapes from the lips of firefighters and others in the inferno, "Saving Private Ryan" and even Masterpiece Theater's "Prime Suspect." Other countries like Sweden are bemused by American prissiness about sex and impose no comparable restrictions on their broadcasters.
The press is free in countries that trust the people to make wise decisions when they're fully informed, countries that remain willing to take the risks of dissent, rude discourse, instability and some insecurity, that tolerate eccentricity and unorthodox ideas. The erosion of press freedom in the United States, relative to other nations around the world, is disheartening. We have always had high expectations of freedom, which we now don't live up to.
It is hard to stomach the hypocrisy of claiming to spread democracy abroad while restricting at home the very freedoms that make democracy possible.
William Bennett Turner is a San Francisco lawyer who teaches a course on the First Amendment and the press at UC Berkeley. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
Page E - 1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/26/INGAKMHOCV1.DTL&feed=rss.opinion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)