For months, the Bush Administration insisted that NSA surveillance is strictly targeted on terrorists and their associates. But this week came allegations that the NSA is also collecting the phone records of ordinary Americans. Critics question the program’s legality, but the president insists that the only ones acting improperly are the people who exposed the program. Brooke speaks with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley about the latest assault on the press.
In recent years, anti-choice advocates have found a new way to take their message to the street. In more than a dozen states, they’ve convinced lawmakers to start offering specialty license plates bearing the message “Choose Life.” Pro-choicers have sued, but last week, a federal appeals court ruled that Tennessee’s version of the plate qualified as constitutionally-protected “government speech.” Bob parses the decision with First Amendment Center attorney David Hudson.
The NSA’s warrant-less wiretapping program has generated the first of what are likely to be many legal challenges. The ACLU accuses the government of violating the constitutional rights of a group of academics, activists, and journalists, all of whom believe they may have been monitored. But lawyer Jonathan Turley tells Brooke that while the plaintiffs may generate sympathetic headlines, they are far less likely to succeed than are several accused terrorists who are also challenging the NSA program.
Preaching politics is protected speech in America…unless you do it from the pulpit. Religious organizations that get involved in electioneering risk getting stripped of their tax-exempt status. The debate over that rule, recently revived by an IRS audit in Pasadena, has united activists of many political stripes. Bob takes a closer look at one contentious intersection of church and state.
Wen Ho Lee's legal troubles began in 1999, when he was fired from Los Alamos National Laboratory under suspicion of espionage. But the charges turned out to be unsubstantiated, and Lee sued the government for leaking his personal information to journalists. Last year, five of those reporters refused to testify about their sources, and were held in contempt. Brooke discusses the case's latest turns with Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman for the Freedom Forum.
Talk radio hosts make a living out of their strong opinions. But can their advocacy on behalf of political campaigns actually be considered an in-kind contribution? It sure can, according to a recent court decision in Olympia, Washington. Seattle media lawyer Bruce Johnson tells Brooke that the case is a classic example of the threat to free speech posed by campaign finance legislation.
In the end, the two reporters who refused to divulge their sources met very different fates. The New York Times' Judy Miller stuck to her guns, and was thrown in jail. After receiving what he described as last-minute permission from his source, Time's Matt Cooper spilled the beans. Cooper said the entire ordeal could have been prevented by a federal law protecting journalists from having to testify. Is he right? University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone discusses the limits of "shield laws" with Brooke
In a 5 to 4 decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Child Online Protection Act probably violates the First Amendment, and sent the case back to a lower court. This is the latest in an ongoing conflict between free speech and parental peace of mind - a conflict that has seen various legislative solutions sent back to the drawing board. Professor Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, joins Bob.
