|
||||
|
Jan. 10, 2001 'Smatter Of Fact For now at least, Texas crime writer Vanessa Leggett is out of jail. But should she have been there in the first place? Leggett, who was freed last week, had been jailed in July, 2001 for contempt of court, after refusing to turn over her research about the 1997 murder of Doris Angleton. The FBI, which was investigating Angle-ton’s husband, Robert, for alleged tax evasion and racketeering, demanded Leggett’s material. She refused, claiming journalistic protection as provided for in the First Amendment. Thus began a long, painful dance between individual rights and civic responsibility. Leggett’s case is complicated by the fact that she is an unpublished freelancer. Whether she is then a member of the "press" is debatable. Her assertion that "intent to publish" should be the definitive criterion for journalistic protection is vague enough that anyone can claim it, and the state of Texas does not have a "reporter shield" law. However, one wonders what might be in her notes that competent federal investigators could not find out for themselves. Leggett’s research is her intellectual property. Her word to her sources, to whom she promised confidentiality, is her honor. Initially, Leggett was willing to cooperate because she was told the FBI "would not ask her to violate her confidential sources" (C. Bryson Hull, Reuters). "I think that (agreement) demonstrates, from their very mouths, that my intent was to disseminate this information," Leggett said when defending herself as a journalist. "I regret ever having cooperated with them, because all I did was whet their appetite." The entire issue raises several questions: How much does it matter if she’s a "journalist"? Who determines what a "journalist" is? And, can that determination be manipulated at will? Furthermore, since when did the First Amendment apply only to people with publishing credits? If it does not protect Leggett’s work, does it protect anyone’s? Too, the concept of a free press was not devised so that some grizzled, camera-festooned reporter could stand up and shout "freedom of the press!" at a dramatic moment, or so journalists could run roughshod over whom they pleased, or obstruct justice. A free press is not designed to benefit the journalist. It benefits the public. "I don’t see this as about me so much as the public’s right to a free and independent press," Leggett said. She’s right on the money. Imagine if there was no free press. Suppose, for instance, that during the Clinton administration (or any administration), the White House was able to dictate every word printed in every newspaper in America, or every segment on every TV show. Suppose Clinton let Peter Jennings have his say, but had the power to deny Rush Limbaugh his. Controlled media are muzzled media. It’s that simple. This is not to imply that every media outlet is unilaterally unbiased — an impossibility as journalists are fallible human beings. But the point is, journalists have the freedom to choose any stance, instead of being forced to spew off reams of propaganda for whoever is in charge. Or indeed, forced to choose between their convictions and their personal liberty. When Leggett chose to stand behind her convictions, Houston prosecutors responded with a closed-door hearing that landed her in jail. She was released, not because someone came to his senses, but because the term for the grand jury convened in the current Angleton case had expired. Already, prosecutors are making noises about subpoenaing Leggett again. Once more, there isn’t likely to be anything in her notes that the government cannot find out for itself, and no one has demonstrated Leggett’s research would prevent the commission of further crime. Still, the government doggedly persists in making her life a living hell, not because it needs to, but because it can. Despite the can of worms her case has opened, can we really countenance that?
|
||||
|
Copyright © 2001 the Cortez
Journal. All rights reserved. |
