Reporter Bill Gertz Ordered to Testify on “Newsworthiness”
July 17th, 2008 by Steven AftergoodWashington Times reporter Bill Gertz has been ordered to appear (pdf) in a California court next week and to testify on the “newsworthiness” of his reporting in 2006 on a case involving alleged Chinese espionage.
Mr. Gertz was subpoenaed by the court on April 30 and ordered to reveal who disclosed restricted grand jury information to him. Mr. Gertz’s attorneys moved to quash the subpoena, arguing among other things that grand jury information had not in fact been revealed and that Mr. Gertz had a First Amendment interest in protecting his sources.
While the motion to quash is still pending, Mr. Gertz is nevertheless required to appear in court on July 24.
“Regardless of whether Mr. Gertz discloses his sources, the Court expects that Mr. Gertz will be prepared to testify regarding the newsworthiness of this case and, more particularly, the reasons why maintaining the confidentiality of his sources is critical to his ability to engage in investigative reporting,” wrote Judge Cormac J. Carney.
“If the Court is to properly evaluate Mr. Gertz’s First Amendment arguments [against disclosure of his sources], Mr. Gertz must particularize them to this case,” Judge Carney instructed in a Minute Order filed July 14.
Justice Department attorneys had sought to delay the proceedings, and had filed a sealed, ex parte declaration with the Court to justify their position. When Judge Carney indicated that he would unseal the declaration, the Justice Department asked him not to do so since it would reveal internal Department deliberations that apparently remain unresolved.
“The [sealed] declaration describes discussions that have occurred within DOJ regarding the position the government should take in response to the court’s subpoena of Mr. Gertz and explains that no decision on that issue has yet been made,” according to a government pleading (pdf) filed yesterday.
In any event, “The subpoena for Mr. Gertz was issued by the Court, not the Government,” Judge Carney wrote. “If the Government is unable to participate,… the hearing will nonetheless go forward.”
The latest developments in the case were first reported by Josh Gerstein in “Advocates Concerned About a Reporter’s Court Appearance,” New York Sun, July 17.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Some years ago, the federal Congress lost understanding of the phrase “… the Congress shall make no law …” and of the phrase, “… ex post facto …” and more recently of the plain English phrase, “… increase supply …”.
Now we have the spectacle of a federal judge who demonstrates that he still has not learned of the legal necessity for a reporter to protect his sources.
Sigh….
Maury&Dog
July 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
You gotta love the bit about the judge ordering Gertz to testify on the “newsworthiness” of one of his regular anti-PRC stories.
The judge can see that something out of the ordinary is afoot, hence the unusual inquiry into Gertz’s motivation.
It would be nice to be in the courtroom for the answer to the court.
“Well you see, your honor, I wrote the article as part of an ongoing information operation against the People’s Republic of China. The newspaper that I work for is owned by the Unification Church, which has long been involved in all sorts of international political skullduggery. And besides, I happen to be a Moonie myself, so there are freedom of religion issues here as well as First Amendment concerns.”
LMAO.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Effwit suggest that Gertz might fess up to being a Moonie and having a jihad against our partner in freedom, China. Alternatively, Gertz might simply say something like “The Constitution of the United States protects my publisher’s right to publish content of his choosing, without prior restraint. An investigation into the “newsworthiness” of an article creates the spectacle of a government review of first-amendment-protected content against an unstated, and therefore arbitrary and capricious standard. Hearing no authority for the government to evaluate newsworthiness, and seeing no standard against which any submission on our part in defense of newsworthiness might be judged, kindly pound sand, or alteratively, provide the authority for review of newsworthiness and the standard that will be applied and we will gladly review both and determine our course of action.”