Blow to Free Speech?

I've been reading some on the topic of the contempt case against Miller/Cooper related to the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Most of the Op-eds I've seen take this as a diminution of the freedom of speech. That is always fascinating. Especially as the freedom of speech is the most unregulated of any of the "freedoms" that are stated in the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think it's a stretch to believe that there is no allowance for regulations related to the freedom of the press or of speech. We know that you can't print or speak lies without the allowance for the speaker being held accountable.

There are also those yelling for shield laws for the press.

"Clearly there's a reversal of the trend on upholding reporters' privilege," said Denver First Amendment attorney Tom Kelley. Federal courts are split on the issue. The high court's denial of review may be "simply a reluctance to take on a constitutional case when a legislative solution \[a federal shield law\] is in the works," Kelley said.

"It is important that we ensure reporters certain rights and abilities to seek sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment," says Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the federal shield bill's top sponsor in the Senate. "This includes the right to refuse to reveal confidential sources."

I truly have an issue with granting anyone rights above the rest of the public. If a private citizen had the information he wouldn't be protected. Should a blanket shield be allowed? Would it be a benefit? What if it's a national security case? I see the benefit of allowing the press a great deal of freedom, but a line must be clearly defined or there will be clear allowances of abuse.

One would think something was learned related to the CBS fiasco with the Bush National Guard documents. That unnamed source was clearly providing falsified documents. Yet his veracity was never completely questioned.

Then there is the case where we should ask why we should trust the press on unnamed sources when they can't be trusted with named sources.

An internal investigation into the published work of former Bee columnist Diana Griego Erwin found 43 cases in which individuals named by the writer could not be authenticated as real people.

I guess I don't understand how the press works, but shouldn't someone have verified that these people at least existed prior to putting out these columns?

The focal point of the topic does seem a bit absurd when you come down to this statement:

It is important to understand, however, that the two reporters pursued for months by Mr. Fitzgerald, Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times, did not have any role in the original leak. In fact, Ms. Miller never wrote about it at all. Time lawyers suggest that ''there is reason to believe'' that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's name did not violate the law, possibly for technical reasons.

This does push the bounds of reason if no law was truly breached, why are Cooper/Miller being held in contempt. If there is no reason for the inquiry, then there is no reason for the view that they are in contempt. If the case was never brought, they would never have had to refuse to specify the source.

Oh, Wait, The reason for the inquiry is because some Democrats have been screeching that President Bush or some official in his administration outed Plame for revenge against the lies her husband, Joseph Wilson, broadcast during the election. The lies were revealed in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA.

But if outing Plame wasn't illegal then why the investigation? Oh Oh I know, Politics.