"Media Shield" for journalists

[Xiahou]

There is a proposed law that would protect journalists from prosecution if they don't reveal their sources.

For my part, I think this is a terrible idea. Journalists are free to report and say what they want- same as everyone else. But, they are not members of some special elite class that entitles them to special priviledges- they deserve no more rights than any other American. If they want to stand by their principles and protect a source, fine- but recognize that in certain situations it could land you in jail.

[Xiahou]

What if I hear some secret from a person whom I don't wish to name when its part of a criminal investigation? Do I get sent to jail because Im not a member of the journalist 'caste'?

When a person is subpeoned in a criminal investigation, you are compelled to testify unless doing so would incriminate yourself. Reporters, like myself, are free to investigate and talk to whoever they want and then print whatever they want (excepting libel). But, it doesn't give me- nor should it them- blanket immunity to refuse to testify in criminal proceedings.

[Xiahou]

There's a big difference between you and a reporter.

I disagree- we're both American citizens, nothing more, nothing less. Especially now more than ever the differences are very few- virtually anyone can open a website or a blog and begin posting news or opinion peices. Do these priveledges only extend to an elite few who work for organizations like the NYT? If not, couldn't anyone in a similar situation claim the same priveledge? If they couldnt, why not?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Heck wht didnt the Mafia think of this. The could open their own newspaper and all claim imunity if questioned.

[JAG]

If journalists can't protect their cources, where is the freedom of the press? If a government can bully journalists and their named sources, can you not see how they can be heavily influenced. Don't you guys want a free press? It is already nastily influenced over there as it is. Blimey.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The point is that journalists are not an elite class who should be exempt from the laws that affect all Americans.
Namely:

When a person is subpeoned in a criminal investigation, you are compelled to testify unless doing so would incriminate yourself.

Crazed Rabbit

[Phatose]

then your only real beef is that you want members of alternative media to be protected too. Frankly, I don't see this being about 'elite' members of the press at all, but about protecting government and corporate whistleblowers.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

then your only real beef is that you want members of alternative media to be protected too. Frankly, I don't see this being about 'elite' members of the press at all, but about protecting government and corporate whistleblowers.

Whistle blowing is not a crime as far as I know. They could only be forced to testify where a crime has been commited.

[bmolsson]

How about the 5th Amendment ? Isn't that where you can refuse to answer a question since you might incriminate yourself ? Wouldn't that protect them ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How about the 5th Amendment ? Isn't that where you can refuse to answer a question since you might incriminate yourself ? Wouldn't that protect them ?

That protects everyone.

[Lemur]

Virtually anyone can open a website or a blog and begin posting news or opinion peices. Do these priveledges only extend to an elite few who work for organizations like the NYT?

Good point. If a reporter needs to protect a source, he should be willing to go to jail for it. If nothing else, that should cut down on how often a reporter is willing to accept off the record and/or "background" information.

[Papewaio]

It might be better to be cautious about such a change.

[Lemur]

I know, but the definition of journalist is so amorphous these days. How does one legally distinguish the blogger from the correspondant? The press is much more fractured and fragmented than it ever was in the past. A shield law would have to be very carefully written if it were to avoid rampant abuse.

Besides, everybody loves to beat up on the press. We should jump on that bandwagon, pronto.

[Xiahou]

If a reporter needs to protect a source, he should be willing to go to jail for it.

That's basically what I'm saying. Now if we want to talk about reforming the grand jury system- that's a different matter. But, as it stands, refusing to identify a source related to a criminal investigation is contempt at best or even obstruction. If they want to stand by their principles and protect their source- great, but be prepared for the consequences.

How about the 5th Amendment ? Isn't that where you can refuse to answer a question since you might incriminate yourself ? Wouldn't that protect them ?

Yes, but like I said- it only applies if you would incriminate yourself by testifying. You can't use it to keep from incriminating someone else.

[bmolsson]

That protects everyone.

So why didn't the journalist use that ??

[English assassin]

The point is that journalists are not an elite class who should be exempt from the laws that affect all Americans.

I'm curious why you think that? There are some situatuions, recognised in law, when the public interest in allowing a free communication means that the person who receives the communication should be allowed (even required) to keep the source/content of the communication secret. Lawyer-client priviledge is an obvious one, the confessional another, communications between man and wife used to have protection too but I'm nopt sure if that is still so.

Now, why should a journalist not have the same protection? There is certainly just as strong an interest in a free press as there is in people being able to get legal advice. Only those with something to hide have anything to fear from a journalist being able to protect a source.

In fact (and its a shame Adrian II isn't around to hear me say it) I would say that to protect a free society its MORE important that journalists should have this protection than that lawyers should.