When my daughter was growing up I used to embarrass her regularly with lectures, often in bookstores and libraries, about the importance of the first amendment and the essential role of the press in the preservation of democracy.
According to journalists everywhere, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Plame case seriously compromises the press's freedom to use confidential sources, therefore, by extension, its ability to inform the public about the true workings of the government. Given my love of press freedom, should I be alarmed?
The argument seems to be that in forcing Miller and Cooper to reveal their sources in this case, the court has threatened all unnamed sources in all cases for all time. Henceforth there shall be no more Deep Throats. Etc.
But that's not how it seems to me--and I don't think my perception is predicated on my political leanings. Mind you, I sometimes have difficulty separating the two, so perhaps I really am getting them muddled in this case.
Here's how I see it.
Yes, we want the world to be safe for whistleblowers. Certainly we do, and we don't want to compromise on that point. But unless I'm missing something, whistleblowers are rarely breaking the law. Deep Throat did not break the law in revealing his information to Woodward and Bernstein, did he? Coleen Rowley took a very public step to bring her information forward about pre-9/11 FBI lapses. Had she chosen to reveal it instead to a journalist with an understanding of confidentiality, would she have been breaking the law? I don't believe she would have.
In contrast, whoever leaked Plame's name to Novak was committing a federal crime. And a serious crime at that, a crime that not only put the lives of CIA operatives at risk but, one could argue, threatened national security. All, it would seem, as deliberate and petty revenge for a political embarrassment.
Now Republicans may believe that because I am a Democrat I actually long to put my nation's security at risk. But in fact this is not the case. I am rather fond of national security, thank you very much. Thus it seems to me of primary importance to discover who it was who leaked the name of a CIA operative to the press.
This seems in no way similar to the cases of Deep Throat or Coleen Rowley. What they did was not a crime. They put no lives at risk. Their work did not threaten our national security.
So my question is, why is this decision considered such a threat to press freedom? Why do the best and the brightest (clearly I'm not among this group, which is why I'm asking these questions) conclude that confidential sources will no longer come forward as a result of this ruling?
I'm not trying to make a case, I'm actually asking for information. Will some Kossack much smarter than I am please tell me why I should get all exercised about this as a lamentable blow to press freedom?
Many apologies if this is repetitious of other diaries. I looked through dozens of entries relating to the Plame case and found nothing quite like this, but I may have missed something.