Defend the Press

[Jason Tate]

Sarah Olson is a journalist who published an exclusive interview with Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the highest-ranking member of the military to refuse to deploy to Iraq. Now, the Army wants Olson to be their witness in the lieutenant’s upcoming court martial. The Army is, essentially, trying to turn speaking to the press into a crime — and wants to have a reporter participate in the prosecution of political speech.

Hauling journalists like Sarah Olson in front of a military court to testify against their sources silences debate, and creates a chilling effect on reporters willing to write the tough stories.


Journalists should not have to deal with potential fines, legal bills and jail time for serving the public interest.

Sign the petition:

http://www.prwatch.org/defendthepress/index.html

[Rodeo]

Signed.


And backed 100%.

[thejetstolehome]

Signed.

[thatwasamoment]

signed.

[Dean Wormer]

I totally agree with this petition, but to play devil's advocate, aren't they bringing in Olsen because she may be their most reliable witness? They can 100% prove a conversation about this topic took place between the two and they know that Olsen will tell the truth. Granted, I don't know much about military courts and it could be a different situation all together, but if this was in civilian court would it be a big deal?

[Jason Tate]

I totally agree with this petition, but to play devil's advocate, aren't they bringing in Olsen because she may be their most reliable witness? They can 100% prove a conversation about this topic took place between the two and they know that Olsen will tell the truth. Granted, I don't know much about military courts and it could be a different situation all together, but if this was in civilian court would it be a big deal?
I think it'd be just as big a deal in the civilian court.

Testifying against your source negates any possibility of a free press.

[preppyak]

the difference is that journalists hold a certain privilege because of their "sources". A federal grand jury wants the guys who wrote the Barry Bonds to testify on their sources, then what is the point of having them. Nobody will talk to a journalist if they know the conversation isn't privileged...likewise you wouldn't tell some thinks to a shrink if it wasn't privileged. When you force a journalist to testify, you require them to ruin their credibility at keeping sources secret...and will in turn kill all sources of investigative journalism, since where will writers get leads and info from?

And the petition goes further:

"However, a journalist's job is to report the news -- not to participate in a government prosecution. For Sarah to respond to these subpoenas erodes the necessary barrier between the press and the government, and forces journalists to function as an investigative arm of the military."

By your theory, shouldn't they bring in the psychologist to testify against the defendant, as to whether he is insane, or to whether he admitted guilt to a crime? I mean, he is the most credible witness they have...

The separations remain there for very good reasons...because some information and the avenues they are expressed through should be privileged, should be protected, and should not be abused. To say she has to testify in the trial, or be charged as a felon, means that every interview a reporter does is now an artifact of the court in its entirety, instead of acting as a check against that same court. What if a reporter discovers that a trial was flawed (Errol Morris and The Thin Blue Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_%28documentary%2 9) comes to mind), wouldn't the court have the same authority to silence that reporter as they do to force speech from them? It can be abused both ways

I know you support the petition, but recognize the devils advocate argument one is the same one that neglects why we have the press as the 4th estate...instead of as a puppet for the government. Watch Triump of the Will (Nazi propaganda film) to recognize why media and government need to be seperate, and when they aren't, how powerful they can be.

[preppyak]

I think it'd be just as big a deal in the civilian court.

Testifying against your source negates any possibility of a free press.
Exactly on both parts...and the Barry Bonds trials are proof of how a civilian case can be just as important.

[Rodeo]

JUST ANNOUNCED!!!!!!

"VICTORY!
Late tonight the US Army announced it has dropped its subpoena of Sarah Olson in the Ehren Watada court martial.

The news broke in an article in the Honolulu Advertiser.

This is a great victory for journalist Sarah Olson and our Defend the Press coalition. It is a testament to what one determined and courageous reporter can accomplish in the face of government intimidation. These subpoenas were quite simply an effort to harass journalists who are reporting on the growing anti-war sentiment among rank and file soldiers. It strikes a blow for press freedom and for free speech.

In a news release Sarah Olson made a statement which reads in part, "Personally, I am pleased that the Army no longer seeks my participation in their prosecution of Lieutenant Watada. Far more importantly, this should be seen as a victory for the rights of journalists in the U.S. to gather and disseminate news free from government intervention, and for the rights of individuals to express personal, political opinions to journalists without fear of retribution or censure. ... Journalists are subpoenaed with an alarming frequency, and when they do not cooperate they are sometimes imprisoned. Videographer Josh Wolf has languished in federal prison for over 160 days, after refusing to give federal grand jury investigators his unpublished video out takes. It is clear that we must continue to demand that the separation between press and government be strong, and that the press be a platform for all perspectives, regardless of their popularity with the current administration."

"While I am glad to see the subpoena against me in this court-martial dismissed," Olson adds, "I still worry about the US military using this tactic to chill dissenting voices and whistle blowers from coming forward in the future. We need to be vigilant at this critical time in our country's history in order to push back against these tactics."

On Thursday, February 1st, the Defend the Press coalition and Sarah Olson will hold a news conference in Washington, DC, at The National Press Club to celebrate this victory and address the ongoing fight for press freedom.

The Center for Media and Democracy founded the Defend the Press coalition on January 24, 2007. Among its supporters are notable journalists, authors and free speech activists including Phil Donahue, producer and commentator; Sydney Schanberg, author; Linda K. Foley, president, The Newspaper Guild-CWA; Larry Gross, director, School of Communication, Annenberg School, USC; Tony Kushner, playwright; Robert McChesney, founder, Free Press; Geneva Overholser, professor, University of Missouri School of Journalism; Gloria Steinem, publisher, journalist; Jerry Zremski, journalist and president, National Press Club.

For a complete list of Coalition members, click here."





HELL YEAH!!!!!!!

[and we whisper]

glad to sign. thats ridiculous. reporters should be able to write the real facts without having to worry about getting subpeona to court.

[sweet tragedy]

He's speaking at my school on Wednesday and I think I'm going to try to go. Also, signed.

[Rodeo]

you dont have to sign anymore!! WE WON!:wave:

[Jason Tate]

He's speaking at my school on Wednesday and I think I'm going to try to go. Also, signed.
Interesting. Report back?

[Shatter590]

i always tought that military courts operated under different rules than civil and criminal ones