Below is my column in The Hill on an important case currently before the Supreme Court on the free press and the ability to protect confidential sources. The underlying facts may seem like something out of The Onion: an accused Chinese operative and PLA Colonel who was viewed as a national security risk is successfully using the Privacy Act to get a respected journalist to reveal her confidential sources. However, it is very serious and, unless the Court reviews the case, investigative journalism in the United States could suffer a debilitating blow with little more than a shrug from the courts.
Here is the column:
This month, journalist Catherine Herridge is in the fight of her life — and the stakes for the country could not be higher. The former Fox and CBS reporter has long been one of the most prominent investigative journalists in the U.S., particularly on national security stories. She is now on her last appeal to the Supreme Court, attempting to protect the most vital prerequisite of the free press: confidentiality of sources.
At issue is a 2017 story that aired on Fox News concerning a Virginia-based training firm patronized by Pentagon officials. Herridge exposed ties of the University of Management and Technology to the Chinese military. It was the kind of difficult, complex story that made Herridge such a respected figure in her profession. The subject of the story, University of Management and Technology founder Yanping Chen, sued, claiming that the exposure had led to her loss of employment.
Such lawsuits are usually brought against journalists by disgruntled subjects under defamation or other grounds that are quickly dismissed by courts. But Chen brought a novel claim against various officials under the Privacy Act. She alleges that they disclosed to Herridge protected information about an FBI investigation. Rather than sue Herridge directly, Chen subpoenaed her to disclose the names of her sources. Herridge sat for a deposition but refused to breach confidentiality.
This is not Herridge’s first rodeo in fighting for journalistic values. Years ago, CBS News forced her out and seized her files containing confidential source information. Despite considerable costs, Herridge eventually stared down the network and forced it to return the files.
Notably, much of the Fox News story about Chen was available in the public domain. For example, a whistleblower and FBI informant had said publicly that Chen had admitted to him that she had been a colonel in China’s People’s Liberation Army. He also alleged that she told him to lie about that fact when called to testify before a federal grand jury.
Because Herridge refuses to disclose her sources, we do not know how much she actually relied on non-public information. This puts her in an impossible position: She would have to reveal sources in order to show that Chen’s claims are meritless.
In making her Privacy Act claim, Chen cited the disclosure of many facts already available publicly, including contradictions of her denials on being part of the Chinese military. The only information that had not already appeared in the public domain appears to be photographic, including a picture of Chen in a Chinese colonel’s uniform.
In this case, Herridge had the misfortune of seeking relief in Washington, D.C., where judges have been relatively permissive in allowing such disputes to go to trial. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, tossed aside protections that other circuit courts recognize under the First Amendment. He ordered Herridge to identify her confidential sources, then held her in contempt when she refused, imposing a crippling $800-a-day fine. Even that was not enough for Chen, who tried to have the penalties increased to $5,000 a day.
Before the fines were paused in August pending appeal, Herridge had to write a check every day from her two children’s college funds. “These fines are designed to break you emotionally and professionally,” she told me. “I would walk every day to the mailbox with our oldest son for emotional and moral support.”
Unfortunately, a panel of three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Cooper’s ruling. Herridge therefore went to the Supreme Court for an emergency injunction against the daily fine. The court refused to intervene immediately, although Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that he wanted to grant the relief.
Herridge is now back before the Supreme Court, which will have a final opportunity to take the case and prevent a catastrophic blow to press freedoms. If the court again punts, then any aggrieved subject of a news story could effectively strip journalistic sources of confidentiality by alleging a Privacy Act violation.
The cause of this pileup is the highly permissive standard adopted by the D.C. Circuit for the single most important jurisdiction for investigative reporting. To compel disclosure, Chen needs only to show that the source is central to her case and that she has exhausted other avenues of discovery. This test exposes every reporter who breaks a story in Washington involving government abuse or waste. Imagine if Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had been sued under the Privacy Act by Nixon administration officials and forced to disclose the identity of Deep Throat.
Other circuits have a balancing test that allows for a more contextual resolution of such disputes. Another approach would be to deny such compelled disclosures when the case (as here) would not likely survive a motion for summary judgment. Chen, who lost her position because of information already in the public domain, cannot possibly show meaningful injuries from these photographs.
The irony in the case is crushing. Chen is an alleged former colonel in the People’s Liberation Army, using the U.S. Privacy Act to gut a Constitutional right not recognized in China. Of course she still has rights in this country, but the question is not whether she can sue under the Privacy Act — it is what standard she must meet before the courts make a journalist betray confidential sources.
Herridge got the story right and did the right thing in protecting her sources at great personal cost. The justices now have a chance to protect her. They should take her case. Not only has it created a split among the circuit courts, but it also has a compelling record to reconsider the confusing 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, which one appellate judge ridiculed for being “about as clear as mud.”
Herridge is not seeking immunity or a favor. She is a tough reporter who just wants to do her job and protect her sources under a fair legal standard. The question is whether four justices will agree and grant review in Herridge v. Chen.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” He previously worked for CBS News and currently works at Fox News as a legal analyst. His views do not necessarily reflect those of those networks.
Sammy the Bull Gravano says get out the vote.
Bing Videos
I’m in a hurry here and only cursorily reviewed this good post, but based on my limited understanding, I take a third approach: witness [the sources for Herridge’s information] protection.
I get a little tired of media’s constant reliance on “anonymous sources” when it relies on damaging or negative stories. This case presumably involves federal employees. I can’t remember but I think federal witness protections only involve threats of violence, can’t remember. (18 USC?)
So I am soliciting other attorneys to respond to why there cannot be a compromise here? Herring COULD be compelled to reveal her sources in camera/in chambers without presence of counsel, and likewise for in camera recorded testimony of the witnesses Herridge revealed to the judge. Alternatively, the federal witnesses (in furtherance of right to confront) could be made available to Chen under protective name pseudonyms, voice and appearance alteration, etc. or in camera as I mentioned? If the judge (acting as trier in fact) determines that a witness had lied and given false information to Herridge, then the witness’s name could be disclosed?
Such compromise a/o judicial latitude could be justified under the Zerilli precedent?
gotta go, I’ll check back latr
@ Lin,
Your optional approach while intentioned is not really applicable to this case.
An in camera inspection is a tool used by judges to determine if evidence is privileged, not to substitute for a civil trial. More importantly, the core issue of Chen’s lawsuit is not defamation (whether the source lied). It is a Privacy Act violation.
Under the Privacy Act, a plaintiff must prove that a specific federal agency or official intentionally and willfully leaked protected records. If the judge learns the name in camera but cannot share it with Chen’s attorneys, Chen cannot maintain her lawsuit. She cannot depose the leaker, subpoena their emails, or prove the agency’s liability. A civil plaintiff has a right to the evidence necessary to prosecute their case if the reporter’s privilege has been legally overcome.
Also your idea to provide the witness to Chen under a pseudonym with voice and appearance alteration cannot be used. Witness protection measures are used only in Federal Criminal cases. Herridge is being sued by Chen as a private civil lawsuit.
In a civil deposition or trial, the Defendant (and the plaintiff) have a basic right to know the identity of the person giving evidence. You cannot effectively cross-examine an anonymous silhouette. Without knowing who the source is, Chen’s lawyers couldn’t ask foundational questions to establish corporate or agency liability, such as: “Did you access this file as part of your official duties at the FBI?” or “Who authorized you to download these family photos?” Masking the witness prevents the discovery required to prove an agency-wide leak.
Herrigdge is essentially in big trouble. Unless the Supreme Court makes a very narrow ruling specific to this case only. Which I suspect will be the case there could be serious ramifications as a result of this case.
Hello Esquire and your “like” sponsor (X?): Thanks for information readily available from google and AI, but, typically, its conclusion is incorrect/ inapplicable. I have been involved in in-camera matters at both the state and federal circuit level.
First of all, a “privilege” IS being asserted here, possibly/potentially on more than one ground, including work product, protected confidential informants, and journalist/reporter privilege. As I said, I have not read the pleadings (I assume you have not either, since your information is straight from the Internet) so I do not know upon what grounds Herridge’s counsel likely filed for a protective order per se?
Second, you may or may not know that judges are not so limited to simply documentary evidence in ordering in-camera proceedings. Think of child welfare or custody cases. The judge can directly examine and question the minor in camera proceeding. And generally for other kinds of asserted privileges.
So my question was simple: the possibility of a judicial in-camera hearing involving Herridge’s confidential informant(s), to examine the informant’s likely testimony, and decide whether disclosure of identification is warranted, or should be compelled, n’est ce pas? That was my simple question.
Also, if the court agrees to the protection of informants’ identity, the information needed by Chen is still available, and she bears the burden of proving its falsity, after which informants could be prosecuted. As I mentioned (right to confront witnesses) witness identity can be altered/concealed via appearance, voice moderation.
I cited this case (below) in one of my long-ago briefs when I was still federally employed, so it was easily accessible but I have no time to research right now.
“The statute, on its face, does not purport to protect a newsman from disclosing only such sources of news or information published by him that was received in the course of a confidential newsman-informant relationship. On the contrary while the Legislature may have enacted the statute with the primary purpose in mind of protecting the identity of newsmen’s confidential sources, we think the statutory privilege broad enough to encompass any source of news or information, without regard to whether the source gave his information in confidence or not. Consequently, it is for the newsman to determine whether he will disclose the ‘source’ of his news or information, and such disclosure cannot be compelled by requiring that he answer questions aimed, directly or indirectly, toward ascertaining the source’s identity.”
From my experience, this state case represents the general rule: Lightman v. State, 15 Md.App. 713, 294 A.2d 149, aff’d per curiam, 266 Md. 550, 295 A.2d 212 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 951, also I menetioned the Zerilli case and the role of balancing interests.
The Privacy Act does not alter evidentiary privileges, although, like Zerilli, competing interests must be weighed/weighted.
If I have time tomorrow I may follow up and cite some case law here for you.
thanks
@ Lin,
Thank you for your reponse. I do not know who ‘X’ is but for whatever reason its ‘like’ is irrelevant.
Your perspective correctly recognizes that in camera proceedings are an established tool for assessing evidentiary privilege. However, applying these strategies—such as an in camera review to evaluate the leaker’s testimony or masked depositions—does not work under the substantive law of a Privacy Act claim or federal civil procedure.
A judge could examine the source in camera to see if they gave false information to Herridge.
But that is not the issue. You’re focusing on the wrong privilege.
You’re assuming the underlying case is a defamation or truth-seeking lawsuit. It is not. Yanping Chen’s lawsuit is a statutory claim under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a)against federal agencies.
To win a Privacy Act disclosure case, Chen does not have to prove the leaked information was false; she has to prove that a federal official willfully and intentionally disclosed records maintained in an agency system of records without her consent. The truth or falsity of what Herridge reported is irrelevant to the legal claim. The identity of the leaker is [emphasis mine] the entire case. If the identity remains concealed from Chen’s counsel, Chen cannot depose the individual to prove they were acting within their scope of federal employment or establish agency liability.
Your focus is on the source’s testimony and that is the problem. Chen just wants to know the identity of the source.
Federal courts operating in a federal question case (like a Privacy Act claim) do not apply state shield laws; they are governed strictly by Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which states that federal common law controls privileges. Under federal common law, the D.C. Circuit recognizes only a qualified First Amendment privilege for reporters, which was explicitly established by Zerilli v. Smith (1981). The case you cited.
Once a plaintiff satisfies the Zerilli standard—proving the source’s identity goes to the heart of the case and all other discovery has been exhausted—the qualified privilege is entirely overcome. The law provides no further statutory or common-law shield for the judge to apply.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and 30, civil litigants are entitled to a meaningful deposition where they can assess the identity, credibility, and background of the witness. Furthermore, Chen’s lawyers cannot effectively cross-examine a masked figure. They need to ask: “What agency did you work for?” “Did you log into the FBI database on this date?” “Who ordered you to print these files?” Answering those questions instantly reveals the person’s identity, rendering the pseudonym and voice alteration useless.
Because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Chen successfully satisfied the strict balancing test under Zerilli, the law treats the source’s identity as vital evidence that must be turned over to the plaintiff. There is no procedural mechanism to keep the source anonymous while allowing a Privacy Act claim to proceed.
Lin, I hope this clears up some things regarding your response. Have a great day.
@ Lin, just in case you would need them there’s the docket info on the Chen case.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8452745/chen-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/
I believe in Herridge. If I could do so financially, I would pay her fines to send a message to her and the DC court.
My PCP advised not to eat Chinese food. Even takeout orders.
We have a list of countries from which we will never buy any food products.
We also have a list of countries that we boycotte as much as it is possible.
Sometimes it is a safety concern, sometimes a political statement.
My simplistic solution is this – compelled speech should be universally banned. No grants of immunity, no contempt charges for silence. The current punishment is just the rubber hose beating in slow motion.
I am puzzled. Are you advocating for the right to decline to testify at trial? Under your system it would seem that no one could be subpoenaed to testify in court. Do I have that right?
So, if Catherine Herridge loses at the Supreme Court, can those of us who have been disparaged by Anonymous on this blog successfully sue to have their identity revealed?
No. Unless an “anonymous” exposed private information that caused serious financial or reputational harm, there’s nothing can do.
I suppose you could if you could prove damage to reputation stemming from the disparagement. But that would be hard to prove as any disparagement by anon could probably be seen as a merit badge to the disparaged individual.
By the way, did anyone know Yangpin Chen is a U.S. citizen? Naturalized in 2001.
This is another notable piece of context Jonathan Turley left out of his column. By repeatedly referring to her as an “accused Chinese operative” and emphasizing her former ties to the Chinese military, the article obscures her status as a naturalized U.S. citizen who has lived in the country for nearly 40 years. Her citizenship status is fundamental to the case because the Privacy Act of 1974 specifically grants U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the right to sue the federal government if a government agency unlawfully leaks their confidential records.
“A whistleblower and FBI informant had said publicly that Chen had admitted to him that she had been a colonel in China’s People’s Liberation Army. He also alleged that she told him to lie about that fact when called to testify before a federal grand jury.”
If true, witness tampering. Also, a colonel in the PLA? If so, how does one get to be a colonel in the PLA while residing in the USA for 40 years? Maybe by spying and lying?!? I think the those questions should be answered first.
I’m surprised the PLA hasn’t promoted you to field marshal. You whine about the Professor being predictable. Buddy, you take the cake.
Those are a lot of….assumptions without evidence. That’s why Chen is seeking the information. Chen was never charged for any crime. But the information leaked by the government caused serious harm. So under the law Chen has a right to sue and find out who leaked the damaging information.
The PLA might be looking for them, too. Let’s find out what she’s been up to before we go there.
The PLA? Again, big assumptions. Let’s stay on just the facts. She’s no longer a Chinese citizen. There’s absolutely no evidence she’s been in contact with the PLA. Even after a lengthy investigation by the FBI they turned up nothing.
“There’s absolutely no evidence she’s been in contact with the PLA.”
I don’t have to refute the absurd. I rest my case.
GSX speaks before he thinks.
If you’d read the article, you would know that the government is not a party to the case.
–Shannon
There is no questioning of her right to sue.
The Danger of Getting Too Close to a Source
Richard Darman was my source in the Reagan and Bush Administrations—and my best friend.
By: Bob Woodward ~ October 19, 2026
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/10/26/the-danger-of-getting-too-close-to-a-source
Omar, Obama, And The Danger Of False Identities
Be on the lookout for John Brennan.
By: J.B. Shurk | October 17, 2026
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/10/omar-obama-and-the-danger-of-false-identities/
Alt.:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/omar-obama-and-danger-false-identities
Turley’s columns have become so predictable. As it is always the case he leaves out a lot from the story. This is mostly about Herridge screwing up and putting other journalists at risk. Her talent as an investigative journalist is not in question. What this shows is she got herself into a pickle with the reporting of the story. She got herself into a catch 22 type of situation.
Turley notes that Yanping Chen was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation, but it omits the crucial fact that the federal government closed its six-year investigation without ever filing any criminal charges against her.
Framing Chen solely as an “accused Chinese operative” without mentioning that she was completely cleared of wrongdoing downplays the core issue of her Privacy Act lawsuit—which is that private citizens have a statutory right to sue when the government leaks unproven, confidential investigation files to damage their reputation.
Turley states that “the only information that had not already appeared in the public domain appears to be photographic”. However, court records show the leaked material went far beyond a single photograph. It included images of internal government documents, private family photographs, and sensitive data compiled during the FBI’s probe. It was more than just one picture.
Minimizing the leak to just a public military photo distorts why the court ruled in Chen’s favor. The court found that the leak consisted of non-public, legally protected agency records, which is the exact trigger required for a valid Privacy Act claim. A pretty important set of facts.
Turley implies that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper simply “tossed aside protections” because he was an Obama appointee. It fails to mention that the court applied a rigorous, multi-step legal test established by precedent to determine if the reporter’s qualified privilege was overcome.
The legal standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the identity of the source goes to the absolute heart of the lawsuit and that they have exhausted every other possible avenue to find it. The court only ordered the disclosure because Chen spent years in discovery subpoenaing government agencies and was still unable to identify the individual who broke the law by leaking her files.
Turley claims Chen “cannot possibly show meaningful injuries from these photographs”. In reality, the leak directly targeted her school, the University of Management and Technology, resulting in the Department of Defense cutting off its Tuition Assistance program on national security grounds—a severe financial and professional blow. That’s the harm she claims in court.
Folks, you should do a little research before jumping in with wild conclusions and speculation without all the facts.
A curious aspect of the law is that it’s designed for reasonable people in reasonable circumstances. Yet, it is increasingly used at its extremes. The Herridge case is an example. If her immunity from a lawsuit prevails, it gives anyone the same license to do the same. Many already do. There should be criteria for making such decisions beyond lawyers’ cleverness.
Remarkably, mathematics has the same problems. It has been proved that there are propositions, even true ones, that can never be proved*. That is, mathematics is incomplete. Ditto for the law.
*This ( by Kurt Gödel) was one of the most shattering mathematical discoveries of the last century.
“It has been proved . . .”
Completely?
Yes. Truth is more general than proof.
Yes. He also showed that some propositions cannot be decided logically. This means some propositions cannot be proved true or false – no matter how smart you are. Many such propositions have already been found. These are called “undecidable.”
One requirement is that the system must contain arithmetic as we know it (and we all know it).
Apparently, you do not grasp the self-contradictory nature of Godel’s theory. Or your embracing of it.
Perhaps you should address your concerns to the entire mathematical community, logicians included. It seems ok with them. They need to know they don’t grasp the issues. Show them!! I’ve only read the theorems, but I’m not a specialist.
“. . . entire mathematical community, logicians included . . .”
Appeals to majority and authority are not arguments.
BTW, it is not the “entire mathematical community” or all logicians. The rational ones, i.e., the ones who accept Aristotelian logic, know that Godel is a corruption of logic, absurd on its face, and utter nonsense.
If you really want to know more, look at the meaning of their entire approach: “polylogism” — which is more corrupt and destructive than is polygenderism.
Then, I suggest you never have a (Computer Assisted Tomography) CAT scan or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) scan for your well being, because it was exactly that mathematics developed with current mathematics (and first order propositional logic) that proved it would work, years before it was built. Include your cell phone, microwave, and TV. They don’t work either.
“first order propositional logic”
There is first-order logic. And there is propositional logic. There is no such animal as “first order propositional logic.” First-order is modern. It is based on propositional, which comes from ancient Greece. Propositional is a type of deductive logic which comes from . . . wait for it: Aristotle’s discovery of deductive logic.
“CAT scan [. . .] developed with current mathematics (and first order propositional logic) . . .”
I assume here that your keyboard-warrior brain is referring to the Radon transform. First, your chronology is all screwed up. Radon is from 1917. Second, it has nothing to do with first-order logic. Most importantly: Radon was built solely on classical mathematics, e.g., Euclidean geometry and calculus.
Heed the warning: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Especially when your desire is to impress others.
(P.S. Though it shouldn’t matter: I taught university logic for 25 years.)
E.g., P does not equal NP?
That is different altogether. It refers to solvability by an algorithm in polynomial vs. non-polynomial time, depending on the size of the system, of course. It begins with something being solvable and then asks about the time it takes for the algorithm to run. Or to discover the solution, if given. Very difficult! Unsolved.
Yet, the results of Gödel were nearer the inconceivable before he proved them.
Yeah! – Who exactly was/were the One(s) at the Bank of England in 63 that: Ordered-the-Hit on the Kennedy’s?
What were their affiliations?
Hum? Trump said that he was going to tell us, but then he realized he couldn’t.
How about those ‘burn bags’? Did they finally make it to the incinerator?
Doubtful at the conclusion of Herridge’s case (the impact) We’ll get any answers at all.
No Reporters at all except the likes of Herridge will be willing to do Investigative reporting, the Chill-Effect will be devastating to the Democracy of our Society.
Thank you for another terrific column, Professor Turley!! You’ve left us with much to ponder today.
Confidential sources … a good thing or a bad thing? At the end of the day, it seems to depend on whose ox is being gored. I have the greatest level of respect for Catherine Herridge, am forever grateful to her for all she’s done in the cause of journalism, and wish her well. However, I have to admit that I’d love to know the identities of the confidential sources who told Obama that Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.
The case is about Herridge not Obama. How do you know there were confidential sources involved in 2016?
Anonymous,
“The case is about Herridge” … Really?
Yes really, Stevie.
Anonymous wrote, “The case is about Herridge not Obama.”
No you freaking moron, it’s about the right of journalists to protect confidential sources and that covers all journalists protecting all confidential sources whether they are involved in a case involving Herridge, Obama, or a moron like you.
God you’re stupid!
@All Responsible Commenters–
It is tiresome to see the threads on all of Professor Turley’s blogs cluttered up with innumerable responses to that annoying troll who hides behind anonymity while posting his pointless, silly remarks.
Stop taking the bait folks, and just ignore him! Consider that old Hungarian proverb:
And the moniker “DrZee” is not “anonymous”? How stupid can you be? BTW, its not Hungarian, it’s from George Bernard Shaw and Irish playright that made that up: ““Never wrestle with a pig. You will both get dirty…and the pig likes it!”.
Not only are you a troll, but a spectacularly stupid one at that.
Great smackdown anon!
That is NOT James.
It was Mark Twain. Never wrestle a pig who buys ink by the barrel.
The distinction between “anonymous” and a distinct pen name is obvious. There are numerous anonymouses here while adopting a nom de plume for posting here allows other readers to distinguish between posters. I’m sure that you see that, but choose not to in order to advance sophist arguments.
Responsible commenters? So what’s the difference between responsible and not responsible commenters? Your nonsense is often so dumb it defies reality. So explain the difference?
Psycho Moron Anon or just PMA
For many of the commenters here, the Turley blog is as close to a real life as any of them will ever see.
DrZee,
Well said.
The annony is a well known useless human being, amounting to nothing as his comments prove.
As for pigs, I would say, pigs are far more intelligent, useful and much cleaner than the annony.
DrZee,
You say don’t wrestle with a pig, and you wrestle with a pig. It’s a bit confusing.
Nice try! I’ve attempted the same more than once. The results speak for themselves……far too often.
“. . . confidentiality of sources.”
Is there no limiting principle here? (That’s a sincere question.)
Suppose JT’s accountant reveals his PIN to a reporter, who then publicizes it. Under the “confidentiality” standard, the reporter cannot be compelled to reveal the source?
I do not understand the panic over a reporter asking a simple question of a source: Did you get this information legally?
The revelation that this training facility frequented by pentagon officials was a Chinese intelligence operation posing a significant national security threat is relevant. Exposing the informants identity could reasonably pose a physical threat to him. Our laws and freedoms frequently are used as weapons by foreign and domestic adversaries. Protecting the security of the nation should be paramount. The case also reveals once again why the party that picks the judges is important.
What utter nonsense.
“Our laws and freedoms frequently are used as weapons by foreign and domestic adversaries.” Please name the specific cases when that happened. The funny thing is that many here think they know, as unadult spews is a fact, but he just lies. No one here can name similar facts or cases. Not one. And you wonder why you get mocked?
““Our laws and freedoms frequently are used as weapons by foreign and domestic adversaries.”…………….I did not write this quote.
National security threat is a different issue. (Though there are ways of handling such issues.) The issue here is the (so-called) principle: confidentiality of sources.
Further, the hypothetical I posed (which is a common case) has nothing to do with national security.
while i largely agree with the professors take on this, he gains to mention one of the most important parts of this case: institutional power hiding behind the freedom of the press to destroy their enemies.
Chen may very well be <whatever it is that she is> and using the courts to crush a reporter. Is also true that the FBI can and has destroy someone by leaking to the press privileged information.
Since there is no effective way to end this institutional abuse, I can’t feel very sorry for Herridge. Anyway, “confidential sources” are a recent innovation from the 70s – a way for a reporter to attack someone or something without anyone having the courage to go on the record
I disagree. The reporting was truthful, highly relevant to national security, and supported by public sources. It wasn’t a hit job. The PLA just wants to find out if any Chinese were the sources. The informants might catch Covid 9mm. Sad, that our Deep State in D.C. is carrying water for the PLA.
I am kind of surprised by the court’s inaction to this point. Press freedom is still important even if we despise some of the present practitioners. I also hope SCOTUS takes up the case.
Which court? Multiple are involved.
“Press freedom is still important even if we despise some of the present practitioners” You mean Shirley and Ngo?
It’s been clear to me for years that the construct of our Constitutional Republic and the laws promulgated can be our own worst enemy. Our adversaries have studied and use them to their advantage. Hoisted by our own petards.
What adversaries? What cases do you know of where US law was used against journalists or, for that matter, anyone, by a foreigner? Do you now something that no one else knows or is this another flare-up of your well known paranoia?
Venezuela, China, Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, the former Soviet Union (and now Russia), Turkey, and Panama have all utilized US law and US Courts to attack American citizens, the media, and US business (mainly banks). This has been happening fairly regularly since post-WWII/the beginning of the cold war (some historians consider those to be the same, others separate it by a decade or so).
I know you love to spew your ignorance and just troll, but this is well known by anyone who has studied even the most minor parts of international relations or comparative law (an elective in law school).
So, it isn’t something “no one else knows.” It’s just something YOU don’t know because you choose willful ignorance and your parent’s basement over an education and a job.
I do hope you’re at least paid well to be such a sack of excrement.
But you have not mentioned any similar cases. Not one single case. And you want folks to think you’re smart when in fact you are an ignorant fool. Words of wisdom: I do hope you’re at least paid well to be such a sack of excrement.
Loading…
Boumediene vs Bush [2008]; Brandenberg [1969]; Skokie [1977]; Xiaomi v Dept of Defense [2021]; Banco Nacional de Cuba v Sabbatino [1964];
Which laws are working against the USA and its people?
The American communist (DSA) are a lot more dangerous than any Chinese communist.
What does that have to do with this case?
We know which side is the true enemy of the free press and independent journalism. Ask Nick Shirley how much the left loves journalism. Ask Andy Ngo how much the left loves journalism. Democrats are deafeningly silent when it comes to protecting any journalists who dare to challenge their far-left ideology and their century-long monopoly on presenting the “news” to Americans.
Shirley and Ngo have not been sued to reveal sources, so your comment is irrelevant garbage. “True enemy” you jest of course.
This particular Anonymous is a good way to understand the painful cost of the 1st Amendment. Our desire for free speech forces us to see this creep’s daily moronic comments from the minute this great column arrives online.
Anonymous, grow up you little child, you don’t even grasp how dumb you are.
Speaking of daily moronic comments, you’re doing just fine. So grow up you little child, you don’t even grasp how dumb you are.
Anonymous, the reply to you under a name of “Anonymous” was really me, I had to resign in to use my “real name”. But I stand by my comment, you are a little pest that we have to put up with as you bring the discourse down a level with your nasty, immature inanities. You truly are a reason to favor having a monitor on this site to keep off nasty little people trying to use a “heckler’s veto” to ruin the comments section.
So asking questions and pointing out absurdities in other’s comments is childish and dumb?
What does anon’s comments have to do with the 1st Amendment? Where is the Federal government involved in anon’s comments? You obviously are dumber than anon if you think any comments here are impacted or affected by the 1st Amendment.
Mary L, it legally has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, as we all know, but it has to do with our attitude, the attitude of us admirers of Professor Turley, of allowing more speech to counter bad speech and this little parasite pushes it to the limit. Get it?
With an ignore button we could exercise our freedom individually not to be distracted by this troll. There are so many Anons on this site it detracts from the conversation.
And then you could just go away eh? But you’re too stupid to know that. And somehow you think your brainless comments pass as conversation? We all see are fools and idiots spouting inanities and lies.
unadulterated0263034d80,
Good point! A “ignore” button would be greatly appreciated and all future annony comments be “ignored.”