****************************************************************

NEWS RELEASE: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Reporters Committee protests subpoena of journalist's phone records

****************************************************************

Aug. 28, 2001

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Lucy Dalglish, (703) 807-2100

(To remove your address from this list,

reply with "remove" in the subject line.)

(Attached is a letter from Reporters Committee executive director Lucy

Dalglish to the Attorney General. A news story on this subpoena can

be found at http://www.rcfp.org/news/2001/0828ashcro.html)

August 28, 2001

VIA U.S. Mail and E-Mail

Attorney General John Ashcroft

Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Thompson:

We are writing you to protest the subpoena of Associated Press reporter

John Solomon’s telephone records. We are concerned that this action

signals an ominous hostility to the First Amendment rights of reporters

at worst, and an indifference to these important rights at best.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is a voluntary,

unincorporated association of reporters and editors that works to defend

the First Amendment rights and freedom of information interests of the

news media. The Reporters Committee provides representation, guidance

and research in First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act

litigation. In fact, the Reporters Committee was founded in 1970 on the

issue of whether the Nixon Justice Department could subpoena notes and

testimony from journalists.

We believe that in a free and democratic society, journalists must be

able to protect confidential sources and information. To deny journalists

this right threatens the free and independent press guaranteed by the

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For almost 30 years, the Justice Department has recognized that it is a

serious step to go after a journalist’s notes, records or testimony.

Particularly in the case of telephone records, the Department has an

obligation under the First Amendment and under its own guidelines to

give reporters a chance to contest such an action unless advance notice

would jeopardize an investigation. In this case, Mr. Solomon was

researching a story about information already in the hands of the

government, so it is difficult to understand how any such jeopardy

existed.

We understand that Mr. Ashcroft has recused himself from the AP

subpoena. However, we believe this incident may be an indication

of a dangerous trend and, perhaps, an indication that the Justice

Department intends to change long-standing policies against

subpoenas of the news media without exhausting all alternative

means of acquiring the sought-after information. We ask that the

Justice Department give the greatest deference and consideration

of the First Amendment and the qualified reporter’s privilege

when considering these matters.

Sincerely,

Lucy A. Dalglish

Executive Director