Bookstores Host Reporters' Talks on Confidential Sources

Some of the nation’s leading investigative reporters have begun appearing at bookstores across the country to discuss the dangerous increase in efforts to force journalists to reveal their confidential sources. The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE), the bookseller’s voice in the fight against censorship, and the MLRC Institute, a not-for-profit educational organization focused on the media and the First Amendment, are co-sponsoring a series of talks by reporters and media lawyers to explain the importance of confidential sources in uncovering stories like the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison and the domestic spying by the National Security Agency. The McCormick Tribune Foundation is supporting the reporters’ programs through a grant to the MLRC Institute.

On April 20, Linda Deutsch, the chief legal correspondent for the Associated Press, spoke at Skylight Books in Los Angeles. Two reporters participated in a program at Books & Book in Miami on April 4--Susan Candiotti, a CNN correspondent and Jim DeFede, a TV reporter and commentator for the local CBS affiliate. Both events were well attended. Reporters have also spoken at bookstores in Berkeley and Sonoma, California, Blytheville, Arkansas, and Portland, Oregon.

ABFFE and the MLRC Institute are continuing to arrange bookstore events. Interested booksellers should contact ABFFE President Chris Finan.
 

ABFFE Urges Supreme Court to Quash Reporter Subpoenas

ABFFE has joined many of the country's leading news gathering organizations in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize the importance of protecting confidential sources. They filed a brief on April 5 asking the court to review a lower court ruling that requires six reporters to reveal the confidential sources that provided them with information about Wen Ho Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos nuclear research laboratory who was falsely accused of leaking secrets to the Chinese government. Lee has subpoenaed the reporters in connection with the lawsuit that he had filed against the government. If the Supreme Court does not agree to hear the case, the reporters could be sentenced to jail for contempt of court for refusing to turn over the information.

Although many states have passed "shield" laws to protect reporters from subpoenas, the Supreme Court has never clearly recognized a "reporter's privilege." The brief argues that the right to use confidential sources is essential to all news gathering, particularly in the area of national security where almost all sources of information are classified and potential sources refuse to talk to reporters without a guarantee that they will be protected from reprisals. "A press without access to confidential sources could do little more than feed the public the official press releases that the government saw fit to issue--hardly the vigorous role that the Framers expected or that an informed public requires," the brief argues.

Gag Order Lifted on Librarian Who Received National Security Letter

ABFFE and other reader privacy supporters are celebrating the federal government's decision to lift a gag order that had prevented a Connecticut librarian from talking about the chilling effect of receiving a National Security Letter (NSL). The NSL sought information about the Web use of a library patron. The ACLU sued the government on behalf of the librarian and persuaded a judge to eliminate the gag and allow the librarian to participate in the debate over the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. ABFFE joined the American Library Association and the Freedom to Read Foundation in filing an amicus brief in the case.

However, the gag remained in place while the government appealed, and the government's decision to lift the gag comes only after the re-authorization has already occurred. The librarian, who works for Library Connection, a consortium of libraries based in Bridgeport, Connecticut, has not been publicly identified yet.

In explaining the decision to lift the gag, the U.S. Attorney in the case cited a provision of the PATRIOT re-authorization legislation that permits the government to lift gag orders that have been imposed in connection with the issuance of NSLs and Section 215 orders. He also said that the Justice Department is reviewing other gag orders to determine whether they should continue to be enforced.

California Supreme Court Rejects Harassment Claim in "Friends" Case