Home > Programs
> Democracy
Now! > Tues., June. 28, 2005
Democracy Now!
ATTN: ALL STATIONS
From: Democracy Now!
Re: Rundown 6-28-05
PRSS Channel: A67.7
Protecting Whistleblowers or Shielding Government Wrongdoing?
Supreme Court on Journalists and Anonymous Sources
Eminent Domain Ruling: Justices Uphold Taking Property for
Private Development
Supreme Court Rules to Hold Internet File-Sharing Companies
Liable
Supreme Court Rules Cable Companies Not Required to Share
Broadband Lines
Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Ten Commandments
Displays
Protecting Whistleblowers or Shielding Government
Wrongdoing? Supreme Court on Journalists and Anonymous Sources
The Supreme Court rejected appeals from two journalists
- Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of
Time Magazine - who may face jail time for refusing to reveal
sources in the leak of the identity of undercover CIA officer
Valerie Plame. We take a look at anonymous sources and how
journalists used them to sell the war in Iraq. [includes rush
transcript]
The Supreme Court, which ended its session Monday morning,
handed down several major rulings before the recessing for
the summer. The decisions deal with issues ranging from the
public display of the Ten Commandments to the laws governing
Internet file sharing to the use of anonymous sources by journalists.
The court, which adjourned until October, issued the last
decisions of its term yesterday without a retirement announcement
from the bench. Speculation has focused on Chief Justice William
Rehnquist, who is 80 years-old and battling thyroid cancer
and Justice Sandra Day O'Conner who is 75. A retirement could
be announced later.
Today we spend the hour taking a look at the Supreme Court
rulings. We begin with the court's decision to decline to
hear the case of two reporters who refused to reveal their
confidential sources. Judith Miller of The New York Times
and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine were held in contempt
of court last year for refusing to cooperate in the investigation
of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Chief Judge Hogan
of the federal district court in D.C had ordered that the
reporters be held for eighteen months or until the grand jury
completes its inquiry.
Since December 2003, Fitzgerald has been investigating how
the name of undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame, ended up
in a column written by conservative columnist Robert Novak.
He had been investigating whether someone from the White House
leaked the story to the press thereby violating a federal
law that protects covert agents.
Valerie Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
who wrote an Op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he
disputed President Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union
address that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger.
This was the administration's key evidence that Iraq was rebuilding
its nuclear program and it's chief justification for the invasion
a few months later. The White House later recanted the claim.
Eight days after Wilson's op-ed appeared in the Times, Novak's
column in which he revealed Valerie Plame's identity, was
published. At the time Wilson charged that it was an attempt
by the Bush administration to intimidate other whistleblowers
from going public.
The Supreme Court's decision yesterday returns the case to
the D.C court where Judge Hogan is expected to hear arguments
about when and where Miller and Cooper will serve time.
- John (Rick) MacArthur, publisher of Harpers Magazine
and author of the book "Second Front: Censorship and
Propaganda In the Gulf War."
- Jim Naureckas, is the editor of Extra!, Fairness
and Accuracy in Reporting's bimonthly journal of media
criticism. He is the co-author of "The Way Things Aren't:
Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error", and co-editor of The
FAIR Reader.
Eminent Domain Ruling: Justices Uphold Taking Property
for Private Development
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that cities may seize
and demolish private homes - even in non-blighted areas --
to make way for shopping malls and other private development.
We host a debate with the attorney who argued the case before
the Supreme Court on behalf of the homeowners and a spokesperson
for the association of cities and towns in the Connecticut.
We turn now to a major ruling by the Supreme Court on property
rights. A split court ruled 5-4 Thursday that cities may seize
and demolish private homes - even in non-blighted areas --
to make way for shopping malls and other private development.
Writing for the majority Justice John Paul Stevens wrote
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and
long accepted function of government."
But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a scathing dissent
saying, "Under the banner of economic development, all
private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred
to another private owner. Nothing is to prevent the state
from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with
a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."
Joining O'Connor in opposing the ruling were Chief Justice
William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The decision cleared the way for the city of New London,
Connecticut, to proceed with a large-scale plan to replace
a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research
and development., a conference hotel, new residences and a
pedestrian "riverwalk" along the Thames River.
- Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute
for Justice. He argued the case before Supreme court
on behalf of the home owners.
Supreme Court Rules to Hold Internet File-Sharing
Companies Liable
The Supreme Court ruled that file sharing companies, like
Grokster and StreamCast, could be held liable if their product
encouraged computer users to illegally share copyrighted material.
We speak with an intellectual property lawyer with the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. [includes rush
transcript]
The Supreme Court also issued two major rulings that could
shape the future of the Internet.
One ruling dealt with sharing music and film files on the
Internet. In that one, the entertainment industry won.
The other is about consumer choice among Internet providers.
In that one, the cable companies won.
First, we look at MGM vs. Grokster. The Supreme Court ruled
that file sharing companies, like Grokster and StreamCast,
could be held liable if their product encouraged computer
users to illegally share copyrighted material.
Supreme Court Rules Cable Companies Not Required
to Share Broadband Lines
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that cable companies are
not required to share their high-speed Internet broadband
networks with rivals. The decision will likely have a major
impact on how consumers get their Internet access. We host
a debate.
In its second major Internet decision of the day, the Supreme
Court ruled Monday that cable companies are not required to
share their high-speed Internet broadband networks with rivals.
The decision will likely have a major impact on how consumers
get their Internet access.
The media advocacy group FreePress warned that the decision
could mark the end of independent internet service providers.
The case was brought by Brand X - a small ISP based in Santa
Monica, California. The company's president Jim Tickrell,
said yesterday, "The Bush administration has made it
clear that they are hostile toward small, independent service
providers like us. And we think that is a big disaster for
consumers, and a huge win for the monopolistic phone and cable
companies, which spend millions of dollars on lobbying efforts."
- Tim Lay, attorney with Spiegel
& McDiarmid in Washington, counsel for the National
League of Cities and the US Conference of Mayors.
Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Ten Commandments
Displays
The Supreme Court ruled a Ten Commandments monument could
remain on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol but that
framed wall displays in two Kentucky courthouses violated
the First Amendment because officials put them there for religious
reasons.
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on displays of
the Ten Commandments yesterday. The court ruled a decades-old
monument could remain on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol
but that framed wall displays in two Kentucky courthouses
violated the First Amendment because officials put them there
for religious reasons. Both votes were 5-4 rulings involving
shifting majorities, producing a total of 10 opinions.
For a copy of today’s program, call 1 (800) 881 2359.
Our website is www.democracynow.org.
Our email address is mail@democracynow.org.
Democracy Now! is produced by Mike Burke, Sharif Abdel Kouddous,
Ana Nogueira, Elizabeth Press, Jeremy Scahill and Parvez Sharma.
Mike Di Filippo is our engineer.
Thanks also to Uri Galed, Angela Alston, Orlando Richards,
Simba Russeau, Johnny Sender, Rich Kim, Joe Murgio, John Randolph,
Chris Zucker, Karen Ranucci, Denis Moynihan, Eric Rweyemamu,
Jenny Filipazzo and Isis Phillips.
|
Listen
to the show
Help
whole
show
