Thursday, November 18, 2004

Reporter convicted of contempt

Interesting that there are several cases like this in the news recenty. On one hand, you want the information they could give you. But on the other, you know that people will be less likely to leak similar things if they fear being identified. Some leaks expose wrong doing and seem "good". Others don't seem to have any benefit and seem "bad". Does it matter if the leak was good or bad? Who decides? - Reporter convicted of contempt - Nov 18, 2004


Blogger Justin said...

Although the courts are split on it, it would be very hard to allow the existance of a "reporter's privilege" that would allow reporters to conceal information that other people have to reveal for the simple reason that there is no legal definition of a "reporter". Reporters are not, for good reason, licensed or registered by the government. If we try to derive a "reporter's privilege" from the First Amendment, we would have to cover everyone-- there is no legal distinction between Robert Novak's opinion column in the New York Times and my opinion post on this blog.

The current system, I suspect, is the best compromise possible, where prosecurors and judges use their judgement not to ask reporters to reveal privileged information in most situations.

12/05/2004 02:09:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home