24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

New York Times Reporter Vows To Go to Prison Rather Than Comply With Order To Reveal Sources

WASHINGTON — In a major ruling on press freedoms, a divided federal appeals court on Friday ruled that James Risen, an author and a reporter for The New York Times, must testify in the criminal trial of a former Central Intelligence Agency official charged with providing him with classified information.

In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled that the First Amendment does not protect reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them. A district court judge who had ruled in Mr. Risen’s case had said that it did. ...

Mr. Risen has vowed to go to prison rather than testify about his sources and to carry any appeal as far as the Supreme Court. But some legal specialists said an appeal to the full appeals court was a likely first step. Mr. Risen referred a request to comment to his lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, who wrote in an e-mail: “We are disappointed by and disagree with the court’s decision. We are currently evaluating our next steps.”

Source: New York Times. Read full article. (link)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Boy, you're going to Ramstein. You know why they call it Ramstein?"

  • John C. Randolph||

    You're a goddamned liar. Cam show whores don't make anything like fifteen grand a month, just ask your mother.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    "the First Amendment does not protect reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them"

    A-1 does not "protect" certain people, it limits what congress can do. Specifically, it says congress may make "NO law" regarding speech.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The fourth circuit flunks constitutional law.

    -jcr

  • triclops||

    WTF is an "unauthorized leak"? Is that some kind of ironic joke?

  • juris imprudent||

    Ah, if only we got to watch the NYT editors dancing first on the foot that loves the 1st Amdt and second on the one that is devoted to the Obamessiah.

    Holy St. Vitus!

advertisement