"Judge Says Time Magazine Reporters Must Turn Over Some Documents to Former White House Aide"

~~ Seems reasonable to me , as Libby is the source ,, so there no "source" for the reporter to protect in this case. A fine line ,as the reporter has rights too.

But in this case I do not see the reporter 's note protected.

Anyone-- even Libby --must be given wide latitude in obtaining
ANY information that could prove they are innocent.~~` TP
===========================
=================

Time Ordered to Give Documents to Libby,
Judge Says Time Magazine Reporters Must Turn Over Some
Documents to Former White House Aide - CBS News:

"Judge says Time magazine reporters must turn over some documents to former White House aide"

WASHINGTON, May. 27, 2006
By TONI LOCY Associated Press Writer"

"U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton limited the scope of subpoenas that Libby's lawyers had aimed at Time, NBC News and The New York Times for e-mails, notes, drafts of articles and other information.

But in a 40-page ruling, Walton rejected the news organizations' argument that they have a broad right to refuse to provide such information in criminal cases."

Reporter's shield bill introduced in House , © 2005 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

~ ~ ~ The Court ruling that reporters
can be compelled to reveal their
sources is bad news. Luckily,
Congress can fix the situation
A Republican and a Democrat
co-sponsoring a much need

piece of legislation. ~~ TP

Reporter's shield bill introduced in House
© 2005 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Journalists would be shielded from
being forced to reveal confidential
sources under the
"Free Flow of Information Act."
Reporters must testify in CIA leak probe

BY TOM BRUNEWASHINGTON BUREAU

February 16, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that two reporters must testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in a probe trying to determine who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of a covert CIA officer.

In an expected ruling, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that held in contempt Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times for refusing to testify.

Time and the Times Tuesday said ---- { what an intereresting pharse, almost poetic ~~tp ] ---- they would appeal the decision to the full circuit and possibly the Supreme Court, and would seek a stay to keep the reporters out of jail.

The publications had tried to quash the subpoenas based on the First Amendment and reporters' privilege to protect confidential sources under federal common law, which is based on practice than on statutes.

In October, District Judge Thomas Hogan ruled against them.The decision prompted calls from Floyd Abrams, attorney for both reporters, and groups such as Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, for Congress to enact a federal shield law to permit reporters to protect confidential sources.

Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.
----------------------------------