NO TEARS FOR JUDY

I'm getting a little tired of all the whining from both the left-leaning and right-leaning press about the fate of poor poor Judith Miller.

Save your tears folks, she's deserving of no special treatment for her crime simply because of her job description.

And save your slippery slope arguments for more deserving cases -this one has a clear distinction that will keep it from being used broadly to destroy journalistic privilege:

This is not a case where the journalist was protecting the identity of someone who was revealing wrongdoing, but one where the journalist was protecting the identity of someone perpetrating it.

Change the crime and it makes more sense: it's the difference between for example, a journalist's protecting the identity of someone who'd witnessed a murder vs. her protecting the identity of the murderer.

Criminals, govermental or otherwise, should not be allowed to hide their crimes behind the shield of journalistic privilege. A free press should not mean free to abet crimes by concealing them from justice.

BTW the SCOTUS agrees with me 6-3 (or, rather, I agree with them), as does this guy

Aren't you getting tired of the lengths to which the press will go to protect their cushy jobs?