Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Angela

Confidential or criminal?

Recommended Posts

I was hoping someone would post about this so I could flame them!! :angry: !!!!

 

j/k

 

 

I was hoping someone would post this though. I think there should be some sort of guidelines for this to keep the reporters protected. Reporters and confidential sources keep our system running. Without it corruption would be even worse than it already is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

should reporters have to reveal thier sources?

Never ever except under circumstances of war. And that's why it's so important that the present conflict must not be deemed a congressional act of war.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree neo. odd as that may be :P

 

if we send a message to anyone, not just reporters, that a court can force the revelation of a confidential source, we wont have anyone saying anything about anything.

 

no more uncovering corruption, no more insider information, no more speaking out.

 

if these two reporters are jailed that will be a total perversion of justice and a persons basic civil rights.

 

even if one of them works for the new york times. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has complete confidentiality. Even Doctors, lawyers, and priests can legally be compelled to reveal confidential matters.

 

A broad sweeping protection of "journalists" and their sources would not be in the best interest of the public. A court order is a court order, violate it and suffer the consequences like anybody else.

 

Journalists have no motivation other that selling a story and/or advancing their agenda, which means sensationalism is a plus for them, hence I cannot convey any "noble" public service upon them. As far as corruption, they are as much a part of the problem as the direct participants.

 

Sure they can protect their sources. That is a tradition and is mos often supported. But under court order? Sorry, game over. If you want to stand your ground for some cause by violating such an order then bring your toothbrush, you're going to jail. It's that easy. You won't be tortured, you won't be sent to a work camp. You will just go to jail for contempt like anybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chop, you cant bring your own toothbrush to jail. it aint the holiday inn.

 

there should not ever be a court order to reveal a journalists source. no court order, no contempt and no jail. problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep throat. :news:

EXACTLY. that went on my entire life! i was born in '72. so for 30+ years no one knew who or what or how and that involved way more information than revealing the name of a CIA officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Journalists have no motivation other that selling a story and/or advancing their agenda, which means sensationalism is a plus for them, hence I cannot convey any "noble" public service upon them.

I'm not clear how that applies to the American constitution. I thought rights applied to all citizens regardless of their motivation.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chop, you cant bring your own toothbrush to jail. it aint the holiday inn.

 

 

It is just an expression.

 

 

 

 

there should not ever be a court order to reveal a journalists source.  no court order, no contempt and no jail.  problem solved.

So "journalists" are above the law? They have rights and privileges above doctors, lawyers, priests, and judges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not clear how that applies to the American constitution. I thought rights applied to all citizens regardless of their motivation.

 

I

YES! THEY DO!

 

Exactly, thank you for supporting my position with your reply.

 

Journalists have no special rights.

 

 

 

It wasn't a Constitutional argument. It was an ethical one. Regardless, it is in keeping with the Constitution. But of course the basic Constitutional argument is much easier and more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as iain eluded to we all have the right to invoke the fifth amendment. there should be no punishment on that. but there is in some cases, look at what they did to larry flint.

 

my understanding is doctors and lawyers can break the patinet or client confidentiality only under extreme conditions. if i come into your office and tell you when i leave there im gonna blow my head off in the parking lot you can they say something. same with a lawyer.... "hey counselor, im gonna kill my husband tonight" uh, then they can call the cops.

 

no one is at risk here. just nosey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXACTLY. that went on my entire life! i was born in '72. so for 30+ years no one knew who or what or how and that involved way more information than revealing the name of a CIA officer.

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!

 

This supports my case perfectly!

 

 

 

Answer this:

 

Were the "journalists" involved in that act of treason ever under court order to reveal their source?

 

Were they ever tried and convicted of contempt for resisting such an order?

 

 

Jornalists have rights just like everybody else. The above is a perfect example.

 

 

Confidentiality is not limitless though, not for anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the "journalists" involved in that act of treason ever under court order to reveal their source?

 

Were they ever tried and convicted of contempt for resisting such an order?

 

 

 

no and that was before judges had thier heads shoved up thier :filtered: and when some things were sacred, like protecting a source.

 

do you think a judge would force the fbi to reveal publically all the addresses of the people in the federal witness relocation program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as iain eluded to we all have the right to invoke the fifth amendment.  there should be no punishment on that.  but there is in some cases, look at what they did to larry flint.

 

 

First, I don't think Iain alluded to any such thing.

 

Second: The Journalist IS NOT invoking the 5th!

 

Why not? He could. I could support that. But I cannot support limitless confidentiality for journalists when NOBODY ELSE in the nation has that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no and that was before judges had thier heads shoved up thier :filtered: and when some things were sacred, like protecting a source.

 

do you think a judge would force the fbi to reveal publically all the addresses of the people in the federal witness relocation program?

:lol:

 

"No." is sufficient. The rest is fluff.

 

Journalists are allowed to protect their sources the vast majority of the time, just as doctors, lawyers, and priests protect people's confidentiality most of the time. But under court order, that's it. Game over. If you want to take the fifth that's fine....but just violating the order by refusing to comply? That is contempt of court.

 

 

They cannot have a right that nobody else has just because they would like it that way.

 

 

EDIT: YES, in some circumstances federal agants have been forced to reveal confidential sources. Witness protection program? Obviously any judge that needs it can compell them to give such info. In such circumstances you can expect it not to leave the judges chambers though.

 

No matter how you slice it, yes, the judge can get that information by asking or by ordering. Nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No." is sufficient. The rest is fluff.

 

 

bs. the point is there should be no court order in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bs.  the point is there should be no court order in the first place.

Now we are getting somewhere. :beer: :beer:

 

THAT is a point that I think can be argued. The unlimited right of a journalist when nobody else in the land has such a right I think is a difficult point to argue.

 

 

Should the order have happened? I don't know.

 

 

What are the respective arguments for and against the order as you see it?

 

I think a very good case can be made that the order should not have happened and should not stand. But is that case sufficient?

 

I'm not certain yet. I am still considering that matter.

 

Clearly a judge has a right to issue such an order when it is needed. But is it needed in this case? I am leaning toward saying it is not, and that the judge is in the wrong, the order should not stand and the journalist should be unscathed.....

 

....But I am not yet 100% certain on my position in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I cannot support limiless confidentiality for journalists when NOBODY ELSE in the nation has that right.

Well I guess you haven't been reading the business pages.

 

No matter. Journalists never have had limitless rights. They are limited by the constitution.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess you haven't been reading the business pages.

 

No matter. Journalists never have had limitless rights. They are limited by the constitution.

 

I

And so are evrybody else's limited in the same way.

 

You brought up the Constitution and I than you for it.

 

For anybody to imply that a journalist has a limitless right to protect his sources is in fact not supported by the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anybody to imply that a journalist has a limitless right to protect his sources is in fact not supported by the Constitution.

*throws temper tantrum in frustration*

 

i NEVER said that. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anybody to imply that a journalist has a limitless right to protect his sources is in fact not supported by the Constitution.

Having established that point it is important to note that it is only a very rare and extreme case that can even begin to recommend the puncture of that sanctity.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*throws temper tantrum in frustration*

 

i NEVER said that. :angry:

**attempts to restrain unruly Angela**

 

**overwhelmed by fear**

 

 

**Caught a nail in the left ear, bleeding profusely**

 

 

I never said you did say that. I am only saying that anybody who would say that is incorrect.

 

I know you didn't say it, you know you didn't say it...so can you retract the claws and let me attend to my bloody ear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having established that point it is important to note that it is only a very rare and extreme case that can even begin to recommend the puncture of that sanctity.

 

I

Very true.

 

 

Should this be one of those cases?

 

I don't know.

 

I tend to think not.

 

But I am not firm yet.

 

 

As I see it, it is a decision made only on the bench and should stay that way. If you violate the order, you can appeal. If you lose, either comply or go to jail. Of course you can always plead the fifth....but even the fifth is not limitless and may fail you if misapplied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think not.

 

But I am not firm yet.

 

 

You and I come to some oddly unexpected agreements.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...