Quote

I mean, in some cases with libel laws, you know, they can write things about people who have no course of action, because they can't afford to take legal action against them.

Reading a brief filled with ad hominem attacks is like listening to my kids fight, except that I have to wait until we're in the courtroom to tell the attacking lawyer what I think about it.

I know a lot of reporters certainly will go to jail to defend confidential sources. Some have even gone to jail for an issue like this. But I can't say that's the norm.

I understand that the nature of politics sometimes involves fending off frivolous, anonymous allegations.

There are bombshells that happen in court. Especially when the defense doesn't share discovery of material the way the prosecution does, and so surprises always happen. Things pop out without warning.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know this: we need to protect our ability to tell controversial stories.

It's strange that the newspapers don't see a connection between their false revelations about my private life and my need for seclusion and security.

It is the press that has taken these charges and accusations and blown them up without any kind of skepticism whatsoever - blown them into realities and treated them as if they were true.

Reporters no longer ask for verification, thus they print charges no matter how outlandish they may seem, and once having done that, when the truth comes out, it's buried in the back page or never makes it on the air at all.

Reviewers try to square the antics of a writer's life with the antics in the fiction. Even satirical verbal play is too often read and admired as autobiographical expression. And thanks to the democratic exposures of the web, it's easier than ever to document private experiences and divulge the most intimate secrets.