June 15, 2004
WE REFUSE TO SAY WHETHER OUR QUOTES ARE ACCURATE:
NEW YORK (AP) -- Reporters at three news organizations are resisting subpoenas issued in the trial of a lawyer charged with conspiring to support terrorists.
Prosecutors issued subpoenas to four reporters at Reuters, The New York Times and Newsday, saying they want the reporters to testify that lawyer Lynne Stewart said what they quoted her as saying in their articles. . . .
Lawyers for the reporters have argued that making the reporters testify would compromise their neutrality by forcing them to side with prosecutors.
Huh? When you quote someone, you're putting their words in public. Refusing to stand behind your quote isn't neutrality. And since when are reporters above the law anyway? (Emphasis added).
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has thoughts of his own. The terms "pretty weak case" and "appalling" appear.