On Rosh Hashana..I submit this story, ja hamilton 91407 SCROLL DOWN TO STORY ON FREEHOLD POSTED AUG
29, 2007..YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS! http://lubavitch.com/rss.php,
www.mass.gov/legis/ go to webcast then left column find usage policy
USAGE POLICY ON MASS GOV SITE TAKES US DOWN ANOTHER PATH
TO FREE PRESS ACTIVISM READ THIS
|  | Email | Printer-Friendly A Shield for the PublicFrom New York Times, September 20, 2007
For freedom of the press to be more than a promise and for the public to be kept informed
about the doings of its government, especially the doings that the government does not want known, reporters must be able
to pursue the news wherever it takes them. One of the most valuable tools they have is the ability to protect the names of
confidential sources — people who provide vital information at the risk of their jobs, their careers and sometimes even
their lives.
That is why it is so important for Congress to finally pass a federal shield law for journalists and
why we commend Senators Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, for a compromise
bill designed to achieve passage.
The bill would create a qualified privilege, which is what this newspaper and
other news organizations have sought, not an absolute protection against revealing a source’s name under any conceivable
circumstance.
The new measure does not contain everything we would have liked. The shield for sources in the sphere
of national security is weaker than in a bill approved by the House Judiciary Committee in August and an earlier proposal
by Senators Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, and Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut.
Under the new
bill, in order to compel disclosure of a source, the government would have to show that withholding the information is necessary
to prevent a specific act of terrorism against the United States or would create “significant harm to national security”
that outweighs the public interest in maintaining the flow of information. That is a broad standard and much will depend on
judges exercising care to ensure that the government meets its burden to prove that the alleged harm to national security
is real.
However, some tweaking was necessary to reassure hesitating senators that the bill would not permit journalists
to withhold information that is truly necessary to protect the United States.
The compromise has the support of
dozens of news organizations, including The New York Times Company. Having worked for months to achieve this accord, Senators
Specter and Schumer, and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, must do everything in their
power to make sure that there is no further watering down of the protection for reporters and the whistle-blowers, or other
insiders who will not speak without a pledge of confidentiality.
Passage of a federal shield law would be a major
achievement. Some 32 states and the District of Columbia have such laws, and 17 other states have recognized a reporter’s
privilege to maintain the confidentiality of sources through judicial decisions. Prosecutions have not suffered, and it is
past time for Congress to act.
In fact, a virtue of the Specter-Schumer bill is that it removes any excuse by lawmakers
to avoid taking a step vital for the press’s ability to report, so the public can exercise its right to know what government
is doing and to make informed judgments.
This article is from New York Times. If you found it informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit their Web site and register an account, if
necessary, to view all their articles on the Web. Support quality journalism. This article relates to: IssuesJournalism
| Campaigns | This article is copyrighted
material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social
justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
SHIELD LAW UPDATES:
Has jurisdiction over measures relating to law, courts and judges, ... 7/23/2007 - House
Judiciary Committee to Consider... judiciary.house.gov/ ... or (more commonly) the House Judiciary Committee, is a
standing committee of ... Baldwin Named to House Judiciary... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_Commi...
This script is intended to be used to launch a printer friendly version of the ... 7/23/2007
- House Judiciary Committee to... judiciary.house.gov/fullcommittee.aspx - more...
Has jurisdiction over measures relating to law, courts and judges, ... 7/23/2007 - House
Judiciary Committee to Consider... judiciary.house.gov/ ... or (more commonly) the House Judiciary Committee, is a
standing committee of ... Baldwin Named to House Judiciary... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_Commi...
This script is intended to be used to launch a printer friendly version of the ... 7/23/2007
- House Judiciary Committee to... judiciary.house.gov/fullcommittee.aspx - more...
Has jurisdiction over measures relating to law, courts and judges, ... 7/23/2007 - House
Judiciary Committee to Consider... judiciary.house.gov/ ... or (more commonly) the House Judiciary Committee, is a
standing committee of ... Baldwin Named to House Judiciary... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_Commi...
This script is intended to be used to launch a printer friendly version of the ... 7/23/2007
- House Judiciary Committee to... judiciary.house.gov/fullcommittee.aspx - more...
Enter content here
|
 |
 |
 |
SCHOOL HOUSE BATTLES
WWW.ACLJ.ORG NEW PETITION BIBLES EVICTED FROM SCHOOLS WRITTEN POLICY 877 989 2255 posted 9 14 07 ja
|
 |
COMMENT ON ABOVE BY JALDRICH 9 14 07 CALLER CALLED IN JAY SOKOLOV AND STATED THE COMMITTEE STATES READING RELIGIOUS
MATERIAL PROHIBITED BY CONSTITUTION . CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? OK WHAT ABOUT HARRY POTTER A SATANIC RELIGIOUS MANUAL.
THAT SHOULD ALSO GET OUT ..ACCORDING TO THIS..INTERPRETATION.
|
|