OS9USER Newsroom

#BREAKING : Alleged plot to kidnap and potentially kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the state government

Why the New York lawsuit
is sure to enrage Trump

Special master told Trump to
put up or shut up

Fox Host Confronts Trump On Existence Of UFOs

QAnon fans celebrate Trump's latest embrace of the conspiracy theory


GRAB a Copy of OS9USER Newsroom Map For Your Website

Apple to release four new iPhones

Apple Top Free Apps


Leaking Classified NSA Information

Billie Winner-Davis, Reality Winner's mother, told Business Insider on Tuesday that President Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, is attempting legal representation to aid the former Air Force language analyst contractor and Kingsville native Reality Winner with her case.

Winner pleaded guilty in 2018 to leaking classified National Security Agency information on Russia's alleged efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. She was found guilty of violating the U.S. Espionage Act and sentenced to five years in prison at the Federal Medical Center-Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas.

In 2016 following her separation from six years of active duty, Winner was hired by Pluribus International Corporation under an NSA contract to work out of Fort Gordon, Georgia.

According to ABC News, Winner printed a classified report detailing how Russian hackers allegedly “executed cyber espionage operations” on local election systems and mailed the documents to The Intercept.

She was arrested on June 3, 2017.

Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty to campaign violations and tax fraud in 2018, began serving his sentence in May 2019 at the federal penitentiary in Otisville, New York.

He has been under house arrest since July over coronavirus concerns.

Military.com stated that Reality’s mother sent a Twitter message that said “Cohen has asked another attorney to look at the case and for opportunities to help.”


We encourage anyone to reach out to discuss potential news stories that may be in the public interest. You can reach us via email or by phone at 603-483-3900 with the understanding that the information you provide might be used in our
LIVE broadcasts or other stories.

Grab our Feed

Bloggers deserve the 'journalist's privilege'

November 07, 2006

FINDLAW -- Recently, 80 California bloggers who call themselves the Bear Flag League filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in an ongoing, high-profile case. Their brief argues that not only Internet news sites, but also bloggers who consider themselves "news gatherers or news reporters," should be treated as journalists under the law.

(A "blogger" is a person who writes an online journal, or log, known as a Web log -- or blog for short.)

The underlying case pits Apple Computer against "John Doe" defendants who are suspected of leaking Apple's trade secrets on the Internet. Apple, in trying to figure out these defendants' identities, sent subpoenas to several bloggers who had printed the leaked information. The fight is whether the bloggers must disclose the defendants' identities even if they promised them confidentiality.

What would change in this case if news sites -- and bloggers like those in the Bear Flag League -- were treated as journalists?

As I discussed in a prior column on the Valerie Plame leak investigation, so far the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to recognize a broad privilege, based on the First Amendment, which protects a journalist's confidential sources -- the so-called "journalist's privilege."

But in this California case, journalist status matters very much -- because the California Constitution protects California journalists' confidential sources.

So, the stakes here are high: It will be much harder for Apple to figure out who leaked its information if the blogger sites that printed it have the legal right to protect their sources. I believe the sites should have that right.

Why the Bear Flag League is right

To begin, I agree with the Bear Flag League's argument: Bloggers should benefit from any privilege that extends to journalists. The alternative is that a court would decide, by looking at credentials and past activities, who is and who is not a journalist. In my view, that alternative is unacceptable -- whether the journalism is online or off.

In a case I discussed in an earlier column, a court tried to deny Vanessa Leggett the journalist's privilege. She was sent to jail for five months because she refused to comply with a ruling to turn over her notes. The reason: She was called a "virtually unpublished freelance writer."

It was uncontroverted that Leggett, an English professor, was taking notes for a nonfiction book; one that was intended to be a work of journalism. But it would have been her first book of any kind. For this reason, the court refused to deem Leggett a journalist, even though no one disputed she was researching a journalistic work.

That was a mistake. The prosecutors who went after Leggett would never argue that a prosecutor on his or her first day in the office is not really a prosecutor. For every profession, there must be a first time practicing it.

Requiring experience, then, is a mistake when one tries to determine if a particular person is a journalist. So is requiring elite credentials from traditional media organizations.

For one thing, elite credentials, like experience, don't always produce high-quality journalism. It bears remembering that in the recent fight between bloggers and CBS News anchor Dan Rather, bloggers prevailed. It also bears remembering that bloggers -- not a rival network -- took Rather on in the first place.

Moreover, as competitive as elite journalists are with one other, they are often collegial to the point of being incestuous. They may attend each other's dinner parties and weddings; they all move among the same small, elite group of publications, and may have attended the same elite journalism schools.

Accordingly, outside journalists - including bloggers -- may be willing to take aim more quickly, speak more harshly, and investigate more thoroughly than insider journalists, especially (but not only) when the story is a story about the media.

The Drudge Report is an ongoing reminder of the value an outsider's independence and candor can bring. And what is The Drudge Report, really, but a big blog full of carefully-chosen links? Remember the Drudge Report's origin: Matt Drudge reported on the Lewinsky scandal while few in the elite media were willing to believe what they were hearing was true, or even if they did believe it, to print it.

We should also think carefully before we allow courts to decide which organizations are "professional" enough to be journalists. Solo journalists -- the late, beloved Hunter S. Thompson comes to mind -- have provided some of this country's greatest journalism. They have also had just the kind of personalities and stances likely to annoy a court into trying to throw them out of the magic legal circle of journalism and deny them the journalist's privilege.

Thus, I would deem any blogger a journalist. Interestingly, by taking this position, I would go further than even the Bear Flag League does - arguing that this benefit should extend to all bloggers, not just those that qualify as repeat "news gatherers" or "news reporters."

Just as it is a mistake to elevate traditional media over Internet media, including blogs, so too it would be a mistake to elevate certain "journalist bloggers" over other bloggers. Bloggers ought to unite to conquer, not replicate, the hierarchies of traditional journalism on the Internet; the Bear Flag League's divisive stand is a tactical mistake.

Bloggers take same risks as journalists

Those who doubt that bloggers should share journalists' legal privileges should consider that bloggers already share journalists' legal risks.

Although many bloggers may not be aware of this, the law considers them as much a publisher as the New York Times Corp., to the extent that they are posting their own words. That means that bloggers can be liable for defamation, and for dissemination of trade secrets, among other torts and wrongs, just as journalists can.

Defamation is the publication, with a certain state of mind, of false information that causes harm. And Internet posting counts as publication. Similarly, revealing trade secrets on the Internet can be just as illegal and harmful as putting them on a billboard in Times Square.

Bloggers can be more vulnerable, because, unlike real-world journalists, they probably don't have a deep-pocketed institution with powerful lawyers to pay for their defense.

As a pratical matter, bloggers (like all self-employed writers) are especially vulnerable to lawsuits. In light of this reality , shouldn't they at least be entitled to the legal protection other journalists enjoy, through statutes and state constitutions that establish a journalist's privilege?

Others on the Internet also enjoy a separate, special immunity -- but bloggers are not among them. By statute, Congress has given some of those who host speech, but do not write it, legal immunity. Search engines like Google may well benefit from this immunity. So do ISPs, message board hosts, and the like. But not bloggers, at least to the extent that they write their own posts, rather than hosting or linking to others'.

Who's the first?

Because bloggers do represent the unity of writer and publisher, I want to raise: a final question: What if the blogger's source is himself? And what if the source is also a perpetrator?

I considered the source/perpetrator confluence in my earlier column on the Valerie Plame leak investigation. There, I noted that the crime being investigated was the leak of a CIA agent's identity, and that the journalists' sources were likely to be the criminals, the leakers themselves.

There, Robert Novak cited two senior administration officials as his sources for saying Plame was a CIA agent; certainly, those officials committed a crime. But Novak and the other journalists who printed the information, it appears, probably did not.

Suppose Novak and the other journalists were perpetrators, having themselves broken some criminal law, or committed a civil tort (invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress come to mind) against Plame. Even so, they were not the initial perpetrators. The first leak happened when the officials contacted Novak.

In blogger cases, however, the confluence might be even more dense: What if the source, perpetrator, and journalist are one and the same? What if the source is not only a perpetrator but the initial perpetrator, and thus, in a trade secret case, perhaps the only perpetrator?

Trade secret law on the Internet is very odd. Once a trade secret is out, it's no longer a secret, so early disseminators of a trade secret are much more likely to be liable than later ones.

In the real world, it's very hard to prove that a prior trade secret is no longer secret and thus no longer legally protected. Traditional media outlets are loathe to publish them, for fear of the legal consequences, so a secret, once out, may not be repeated much.

Not so with the Internet: When a certain piece of information can be found, even on one site, by an interested party, is it truly secret anymore? Arguably, only the initial publisher of a trade secret on the Internet should be liable for the damages that follow.

That leads to a conundrum: If the initial publisher is the only one likely to be on the hook, legally, and if the initial publisher cannot be found because he is a blogger who takes the journalist's privilege as to his source (himself), then trade secret law on the Internet becomes useless.

But this conundrum is based on perjury. Enforcement of the law always is impeded by perjury. Moreover, perjury can be caught and punished in this situation.

To protect a source, a blogger has to have a source: His source cannot just be himself or herself. Otherwise, defamation and trade secret laws would be gutted. And if under oath, in court, a blogger falsely swears he has a source, he risks a criminal perjury conviction.

Will his perjury ever be discovered? Perhaps. A judge may rule that his privilege must yield to the demands of the case, just as the judge in the Apple case did (though the ruling is on appeal.) If so, then the blogger will have to either expose himself, or blame an innocent person.

In short, those who leak trade secrets and pretend to be journalist-bloggers to cover their tracks should beware.

For this reason, it's much more likely that an initial trade secret leaker would employ anonymity to evade being caught than pretend to be a journalist with a confidential source. Accordingly, the real threat to trade secret law on the Internet remains anonymity.

On the whole, the need to protect trade secrets is not a strong enough reason to deny bloggers the same legal privileges that traditional journalists already enjoy.


Julie Hilden, a FindLaw columnist, practiced First Amendment law at the D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1996-99. Hilden's first novel, 3, was published recently. Hilden's Web site, www.juliehilden.com, includes MP3 and text downloads of the novel's first chapter.

Track This Posting And Stay Up To Date !!! Easy & Quick Install

Blogger OS9USER posted on 1:23 PM, November 07, 2006

I will be tracking This !


1 Comment(s) on this Article

Post a Comment


Trump Claims He Declassified
Documents Using Special Powers

Legal expert reacts to Trump's
inaccurate claim about declassifying

Twitter News

Hackaday — Access An 8-bit Atari Through Twitter

cryptodaily.co.uk — Could China be behind a recent spike in bitcoin addresses?

Medium — Thoughts on distribution strategy and CEO/firm misalignment

Wired — How to Block Bad Websites—or Just Get Things Done

Arkansas Online — Stocks advance to end their best week in 3 months

Business Standard India — Trump to hold in-person White House event Saturday, hit campaign trail Mon

VentureBeat — Star Wars: Squadrons is seeing significant VR play

Japan Today — Twitter testing how its misinformation labels can be more obvious, direct

Mashable — One man's frustrating journey to recovering his Myspace

Medium — The Viral Nature of Bitcoin inside Publicly-traded Company Stocks

 Claim by Mike Pence:

"(Biden’s) own chief of staff, Ron Klain, would say last year that it was pure luck, that they did ‘everything possible wrong’ (with H1N1). And we learned from that."
PolitiFact rating: Needs context
Fact-checking the 2020 vice presidential debate, Kamala Harris vs. Mike Pence

Claim by Kamala Harris:
"There are estimates that by the end of the term of this administration, they will have lost more jobs than almost any other presidential administration."
PolitiFact rating: Half True

Claim by Mike Pence:
That Rose Garden event — there's been a great deal of speculation about it — my wife Karen and I were there and honored to be there. Many of the people who were at that event, Susan, were actually tested for coronavirus, and it was an outdoor event, which all of our scientists r...
CBS News rating: Partially true

Claim by Mike Pence:
"This administration saw 500,000 manufacturing jobs created."
PolitiFact rating: Misleading

Claim by Sen. Kamala Harris:
"Because of a so-called trade war with China, America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs."
FactCheck.org rating: False

Claim by Mike Pence:
"The Green New Deal's on their campaign website."
PolitiFact rating: Misleading

Claim by Kamala Harris:
"Do you know that of the 50 people who President Trump appointed to the court of appeals for lifetime appointments, not one is Black?"
PolitiFact rating: Accurate

Claim by Mike Pence:
The Rose Garden event with Judge Amy Coney Barrett "was an outdoor event which all of our scientists regularly and routinely advised."
PolitiFact rating: Wrong

Claim by Kamala Harris:
Says Trump "got rid of" the National Security Council pandemic threat staff, and the CDC's team in China.

Tracking COVID-19

Our Interactive Radar

Tracking Our
New Hampshire Weather


OS9USER Trailer Mania


Release Date: October 7, 2022 (US)

Genre : Thriller

The official synopsis;

"A young woman struggling with addiction comes into possession of an ancient puzzle box, unaware that its purpose is to summon the Cenobites, a group of sadistic supernatural beings from another dimension."

Warning: Some flashing-lights scenes in this film may effect photosensitive viewers.

Search our Archives