Yet Another Reason to Dislike McCain: Free Speech 2.0
April 14, 2008 by Laura | Trackback URI
Not satisfied with his McCain-Feingold attack on free speech, he wants to give reporters a special right to disobey the law, making their free speech a lot more equal than others’.
McCain backs shield law for reporters - USATODAY.com
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday he would support a federal shield law for reporters, although with misgivings.
McCain told a meeting of the Associated Press that he is “willing to invest in the press a very solemn trust that in the use of confidential sources, you will not do more harm than good, whether it comes to the security of the nation or the reputation of good people.”
Because the press has done such a fabulous job of earning that trust. Start with Mary Mapes and Dan Rather, deplorable and deceptive Iraq war reporting, exposing legal and effective terror-financing tracking programs, regularly adding an “R” to the name of Dems caught in a scandal, Pallywood, Richard Jewell and Steven Hatfill, selling the public the bill of goods that the Tet offensive was a huge American loss instead of a victory, all the way back to Walter Duranty and a million offenses in between. So let’s reward them with Free Speech 2.0; the right to tell the government which laws it will be permitted enforce and on whom.
In the case of Steven Hatfill, a reporter was required to either pay up or stop shielding a leaker. There is no legal right to leak classified information. Giving reporters a legal right to shield leakers would have the effect of creating such a right. If someone feels the need to release classified information because the government is doing something wrong, then they can blow the whistle on it. But leaking is an entirely different - and thoroughly dishonorable - activity. The difference between leakers and whistleblowers is clear.
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.
I’d love to know on what McCain bases the decision to support these things. I’ve been thinking for some time that I’m going to have to grit my teeth and vote for McCain (or close my eyes and think of stopping earmarks!) but every day he works hard to give me a new reason to stay home on election day.
Comments
No Responses to “Yet Another Reason to Dislike McCain: Free Speech 2.0”