19 ms·
This is pretty bad journalism and just kind of meant to stoke the fire of controversy. The subpoena will most likely be dropped (as ICE would with almost certai
by dvt 6y ago
This is pretty bad journalism and just kind of meant to stoke the fire of controversy. The subpoena will most likely be dropped (as ICE would with almost certainty lose in court[1]).
The Yale Law Journal article cited does argue that even though it's worrysome that there's no federal reporter's privilege, there's plenty of precedent, including constitutional (state-level), statutory as well as common-law protections that can be invoked to throw out this kind of lawsuit.
[1] https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-de-facto-reporters-privilege https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-de-facto-reporter...
- eganist 6y ago> This is pretty bad journalism and just kind of meant to stoke the fire of controversy. Imagine not reporting on the fact that a federal institution is trying to test their limits. Just because something is likely to be thrown out doesn't mean an agency pushing limits shouldn't be reported. The entire point of the press is to bring awareness to situations like this.
- dvt 6y ago> Imagine not reporting on the fact that a federal institution is trying to test their limits. Subpoenaing sources is standard operating procedure for all law enforcement agencies (from the FBI, to ICE, to your local PD). As mentioned in a different post, it's a low-risk, high-reward legal strategy, even though it won't work 99.9% of the time. It's making a mountain out of a molehill.
- saagarjha 6y agoICE trying to subpoena things that they know wouldn’t hold up in court seems fairly worthy of coverage, if you’d ask me.
- dvt 6y agoExcept that it literally happens all the time, mostly by local agencies. But this happens to be news because it's ICE, and everyone hates ICE. It's not that hard to see the click-bait selective reporting.
- aqme28 6y ago"this happens to be news because it's ICE" Exactly. I don't see why that justifies the dismissiveness.
- dvt 6y ago> I don't see why that justifies the dismissiveness. Because it's click-bait selective reporting that stokes outrage. (Case in point: Just take a look at how I'm getting spam downvoted after outlining my position fairly straightforwardly.)
- peterbonney 6y agoYou’re getting downvoted because your position is absurd on its face. Just because subpoenas are likely to be dismissed does not make them unworthy of reporting, and arguably quite the opposite - particularly when it is a major federal agency doing the subpoenaing rather than some small town sheriff. A subpoena is expensive and onerous to fight. Yes, Buzzfeed has the resources to do so. Does your local paper? To dismiss the power and newsworthiness of a subpoena from a major federal agency with all of the financial and human resources (funded by you the taxpayer!) that such position implies is cynical beyond belief. To then further dismiss the criticism of that view as “spam” is revealing.
- dvt 6y ago
- klyrs 6y agoNope. When the freedom of press is under attack by the government, it is news. Every single time.
- lopmotr 6y agoI think the problem is that most of the content is general subjective anti-Trump ranting, and not specific to this incident.
- fastball 6y agoIs revealing sources really a violation of "freedom of press"? What exactly is freedom of the press?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- justinclift 6y ago> Is revealing sources really a violation of "freedom of press"? Well, when a confidential source has their identity revealed it's likely to go pretty badly for them. eg: many corporate and gov whistleblowers being fired + pursued extra-legally, Chelsea Manning thrown in prison, and so on. So, (most) media organisations seem to resist doing the revealing. Whether or not that falls strictly under the "freedom of the press" term or not though, is not all that relevant. The concept of "don't reveal sources" is pretty basic, regardless of the term people use to describe it. ;)
- dafoex 6y agoSo no hope of Harvard notation from the Beeb, then?
- jachee 6y agoIt's the ability to publish criticism and facts about the government without facing harm from doing so. Revealing sources violates the trust those sources depend on to ensure the truth gets reported, and risks harm to those sources.
- cortesoft 6y agoThe problem isn’t that they will be forced to comply with the subpoena, but that they tried to issue one at all.
- dvt 6y agoThis is standard operating procedure and happens all the time, especially at the local level. 99.9% the subpoenas fall through, but it's a low-risk, high-reward legal strategy.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y agoThen that is a bug that needs to be fixed.
- dvt 6y agoNot really, because there might be some cases where compelling a journalist to reveal their sources is the right thing to do. Coming up with examples is trivial: child abuse, war crimes, etc. Of course, this should be extremely rare (which it already is). The freedom of the press, much like the freedom of speech (and religion, for that matter), is not -- Constitutionally speaking -- absolute.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y agoNo, the bug is a government agency knowingly trying to work around legal process.
- 8note 6y agoI'm not clear how those require revealing sources? If a source reports a war crime, people should be going after the war criminal, not the person that called them out