Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Jack Goldsmith hates a free press!

By Mark Obbie

ADVERTISEMENTS

OK, maybe that headline is a bit overstated. But I can't help but suspect that's the bottom line after a remarkable exchange of erudite volleys between former Justice Department legal policymaker Jack Goldsmith and The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau. I wrote here about Goldsmith's sharp attack in The New Republic on Licthblau's national-security reporting. Now Lichtblau has fired back -- arguing in essence that he and the Times have done their duty in shedding light on important policy debates (a point I made here when noting Licthblau's effect on the FISA bill debate) -- and Goldsmith as returned serve. It's the latter that's most notable, in my mind. What once was somewhat subtle is now explicit about Goldsmith's attitude toward a truly independent press. Check out these quotes:

Nor does he provide any reason why the Times--inexpert in national security, motivated by fame and profit, and lacking political accountability or external checks--should be trusted to strike the right balance between security and disclosure. Sometimes it makes the right call, but often it does not.. . .We've focused a lot on the dangers of government secrecy in the last seven years, and too little on the dangers of an unchecked and sometimes irresponsible press. Lichtblau's book has done the country a service by laying these latter dangers bare.

Did Goldsmith write his own book merely for "fame and profit? Is it not possible, in other words, for journalists and authors to write in what they perceive to be the public interest -- even if it also is fodder for a profit-making business? And does he really advocate "external checks" (in the legal sense) on the American press? Hammering on a supposedly irresponsible press is free speech, and completely fair game. Pining for criminal penalties or prior restraint -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I catch whiffs of that in the collection of Goldsmith's writing -- is downright scary. But we can thank both authors for venting their beliefs in a fascinating clash of world views.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on August 13, 2008 (boomark / email).