The ACLU issued a statement Friday criticizing a federal grand jury’s motion to subpoena a New York Times reporter in an effort to question him about his confidential sources.
The reporter, James Risen, wrote a book that includes a chapter on a CIA operation to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program. The grand jury is seeking information from Risen’s source because he or she may have broken the law in leaking the information to the reporter. Risen will fight the subpoena.
ACLU Director Anthony Romero said,
The work of Mr. Risen, the New York Times and other publications has been tremendously significant in uncovering government abuses, and the ripple effects are still being felt. As we’ve seen with stories on NSA wiretapping, CIA black sites and extraordinary rendition, conversations between reporters and confidential sources can have historic consequences. We should do everything possible to protect that relationship.”
Risen’s situation has caused widespread disagreement on a reporter’s right to withhold information on confidential sources. A U.S. Senate bill that would expand the press’ ability to protect sources is currently on the floor, and a similar bill – the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 – has already passed the House. This most recent bill went so far as to include professional bloggers in the mix of journalists protected by the act.
But some commentators view Risen’s case as an overreach of press freedoms, some suggesting that the NYT and Risen see themselves as “above the law”:
Ultimately, I hope that the court sends Risen to jail for a good long time and fines both him and his employer for their disrespect for the law. And this should be more evidence that the Press needs to be taught a sharp lesson about where the First Amendment ends and their responsibilities as American citizens begin. I believe that while we desperately do need a free press, it is time Congress passes a law specifying that if classified information is released like this, then reporters must assist in the subsequent investigations or face trial as accomplices.”
As with many First Amendment cases, this one raises the question of where one can draw a line between a free press and an effective system of justice. Often this line is drawn around the issue of whether the confidential source has in fact broken the law – although most state shield laws recently approved have protected journalists in all cases except those that could cause direct threat of injury or death.
