The journalistic community asserts that their protection of confidential sources is necessary to protect free speech. Does this really apply in the present case of Judith Miller?
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr,, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
The point Justice Holmes was making is that the right of free speech does not include the right to use speech in any way we please.
In the matter of Judith Miller and the ongoing investigation into the Plame affair, a Federal District Court, which represent the final authority on this matter, has required Judith Miller to provide testimony regarding one or more conversations that are believed to be part of a plot that has resulted in significant harm. Indeed, the potential for harm is far greater than would be caused by shouting fire in a crowded theater.
In defending the "right" of Judith Miller to refuse to reveal her confidential source in this matter, the New York Times and the larger journalistic community are defending the equivalent of the right to shout fire in a theater. We should be challenging this more actively and aggressively.