Freedom of the Press vs. National Security — A Tough Balance

Thursday, 30 May 2013 05:05 PM

By Lanny Davis

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
    A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
I have known and been a friend of Attorney General Eric Holder for many years. He is a progressive Democrat who believes in First Amendment values and especially vigorous freedom for investigative reporters to publish the facts. So I give the Attorney General a heavy presumption of good faith and trying to make the best judgment at the time.
 
I also know, as widely reported, that now, with the wisdom of hindsight, he is willing to express regrets about the approach used in subpoenaing telephone records of certain reporters in the course of a serious national security leak investigation, especially the ill-advised decision to name Fox investigative reporter as a criminal “co-conspirator.”
 
By the way, the words Eric Holder testified to in front of the Judiciary Committee were, as far as I can tell, accurate — there was never an intent to bring criminal charges against (or “prosecute,” the word he used) Mr. Rosen. That is a fact. And that is what he said. Naming Rosen as a co-conspirator, however ill-advised, was for the purpose of establishing him as a fact witness, not to prosecute him.  
 
I for one believe the bar should be very, very high — that is two “very’s” — before any reporter should have to be subpoenaed to testify and required to reveal the source of a story. 
 
Rogers Ailes, Fox News Channel’s CEO and president, was right to be angry and to denounce the naming of his respected Fox investigative reporter James Rosen as a co-conspirator in the affidavit supporting the subpoena for telephone records. (If I were in trouble, I would want Roger Ailes in the trenches to take the spears for me.
 
P.S.  I am a Fox News contributor and friend of Ailes for many years. P.P.S.  Another fan and friend of Roger Ailes is progressive MSNBC TV commentator Chris Matthews, who got his first TV job from Ailes.
 
The best — the only answer — to resolving the inherent tension between First Amendment freedoms and the need to deter national security-implicated leaks that could be illegal is — forgive what seems to be a trite expression — a balanced approach.
 
And this is what we see, thank goodness, from two senators from both sides of the aisle — Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. — who released a legislative proposal over the weekend that from now on, any subpoena for telephone records or wire intercepts of journalists should be decided by a judge, not the DOJ or FBI alone.
 
The judicial balancing standards proposed by Messrs. Schumer and Graham are as follows:
 
"In national security leak cases, demands for reporters' phone or email records — whether sought by subpoena or National Security Letter — would need to be approved by a judge under a strict legal standard. The judge would need to be convinced that there is a ‘significant and articulable risk of future terrorism or harm to the national security’ and that the information sought would materially assist the government in preventing that risk.”
 
The proposal would also require the news organization to be notified ahead of time to be given a chance to object to the judge or the Justice Department before the subpoenas are issued. I would also suggest that the definition of a journalist be taken into consideration by the judge — with a freelance blogger (who could be an al-Qaida member in disguise) given less weight for protection by a judge than a reporter of a known, serious news organization, such as James Rosen.
 
This should be a truly purple issue — both liberal ACLU members and conservative libertarians and tea party members do not want expansive government power that can chill First Amendment expression or vigorous investigative reporting. On the other hand, since 9/11, there is no "Red" or "Blue" difference between the need to protect against genuine threats from terrorists and hostile powers to our homeland's security.
 
We need to protect our individual privacy rights — libertarians and liberals agree on that. And we need to avoid another 9/11 — libertarians and liberals agree on that. Let’s go ahead with that purple position and find the right balance.  
 
Lanny Davis is the principal in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which specializes in strategic crisis management. He served as President Clinton’s Special Counsel in 1996-1998. Read more reports from Lanny Davis — Click Here Now.
 
 
 
 
 

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Clinton, Warren, Remain United

Monday, 15 Dec 2014 11:45 AM

As a supporter of Hillary Clinton for president if she runs, I don't mind the efforts of some Democrats to urge Sen. Eli . . .

Why I am Ready for Hillary

Thursday, 11 Dec 2014 10:12 AM

Last week, on Dec. 4, I helped organize a Ready for Hillary fundraiser in Montgomery County, Md., in the immediate subur . . .

Ferguson - a Call for Effective Policing Tactics

Thursday, 04 Dec 2014 09:42 AM

No matter how effective the communications skills of the key players in the Michael Brown tragedy, bitterness and anger  . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved