Pursuing Holiness

Remember the anthrax attacks in 2001? “Person of interest” Steven Hatfill was subject to intense government scrutiny and media coverage after government leaks, but was never charged.  The case took one bizarre turn after another, including when he attempted to approach one of the FBI agents following him.  An agent ran over his foot - resulting in Hatfill receiving a ticket. Michelle Malkin commented yesterday, and has more background here and here.

He filed suit against the government, and a judge has ordered some reporters to ‘fess up. One reporter is finally going to have to give up her government source or pay the price personally.

A federal judge has ordered a former USA TODAY reporter to begin paying fines of up to $5,000 per day after finding her in contempt of court for failing to identify sources who named former Army scientist Steven Hatfill as a possible suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

The decision late Friday night by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton also requires Toni Locy — not her former employer or others — to pay the fines as long as she refuses to identify her sources.
Reporter held in contempt for anthrax case - USATODAY.com

Were there at least circumstantial reasons to suspect Hatfill? Certainly. But his guilt or innocence is not at issue at the moment. The question at hand is whether the press has the right to shield government officials who leak information. Whistleblowing is one thing - leaking is an entirely different, cowardly act.
Glenn Reynolds wrote,

“There’s no constitutional reason for these sources to be protected, and no other good reason that I can see. The press’s abuse of anonymous sources is in the process of generating considerable blowback, and rightly so.”

and this -

If ordinary people witness a crime, they have to talk about it. If they participate in a crime — say, by receiving classified documents — they have to say where they got them. Journalists want to be treated differently, but the First Amendment doesn’t create that sort of privilege. Nor should we.

This isn’t a freedom of the press issue at all.  The media is demanding the right to shield criminals and Judge Walton is entirely correct in saying that they do not have that right.

written by Laura