• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why are reporters/journalists being thrown in jail now for refusing to devulge their souces?

There are several reasons. First, they are protecting a source that leaked the name of a CIA agent, which is illegal. Second, the reporters' source released them from confidentiality, and they STILL won't give up their source.
 
It is because in this case they are protecting the guilty. They are not protecting the innocent who is exposing an injustice. They are protecting the person who committed the injustice.
 
Originally posted by: JEDI
They were able to get away with it b4. so what changed?
Click to expand...
When before? When has a reporter/journalist broken a crime and gotten away with it solely since they were reporter/journalist? Simply attaching that label to your occupation name doesn't mean you can break any crime you want and get away.
 
They are considered witnesses to a crime. They are held to the same standards and clergy and doctors.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
There are several reasons. First, they are protecting a source that leaked the name of a CIA agent, which is illegal. Second, the reporters' source released them from confidentiality, and they STILL won't give up their source.
Click to expand...

link saying the source released the reporters from confidentiality?
 
The thing is that both journalists shared at least one source and that individual has given them permission to reveal his identity. One guy has accepted the offer, the other lady still won't reveal and is now being sent to jail.
 
Incredible news... the right to protect the sources is the cornerstone of a free journalism. Something like this story was absolutely inimmaginable 10 years ago in the US. We should really begin to realize what is happening ot the information system in this country.
 
Maybe I'm just missing something, but how is this case special? As far as I now, reporters don't have to reveal their sources under free press protections. Even if a reporter has evidence relevant to a crime, they are protected by law in not having to reveal that information of their source.

Last year there was a riot at my school, and a photographer for the paper took a picture of some guy pushing a flaming dumpster. The photographer got the guy's name, but the paper didn't publish it. The cops tried to force the photographer to give up the name, he challenged them and won. Now except for the seriousness of the crime here, how is the principle different? Contrary to what many of you seem to believe, reporters ARE special when it comes to revealing information about criminal activity. They are protected in many cases by shield laws and the 1st amendment, and I guess I'm unclear as to the legal nuances that apply here. Simply saying "they know about illegal activity" shouldn't cut it, I think.
 
National Security is a little higher importance. If the CIA has a mole they definitely need to know about it.

To protect a mole is to be guilty in an espionage investigation and in a case like this you could be thrown in jail with no bond and no first amendment rights.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
They are protected in many cases by shield laws and the 1st amendment, and I guess I'm unclear as to the legal nuances that apply here. Simply saying "they know about illegal activity" shouldn't cut it, I think.
Click to expand...
The first amendments states one thing: that congress shall not pass a law which restricts freedom of press. What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Congress has not passed a law that restricted freedom of press. There are laws about what you are required to do in a criminal investigation and trial, but that has nothing at all to do with restricting what can/cannot be printed. Remember, they aren't being punished for printing something. If I recall correctly, 49 states have state laws and/or state constitutions which give more rights to the press. Your dumpster example probably fell under a state law. However, there are places in the US that don't have laws like that.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
They are protected in many cases by shield laws and the 1st amendment, and I guess I'm unclear as to the legal nuances that apply here. Simply saying "they know about illegal activity" shouldn't cut it, I think.
Click to expand...
The first amendments states one thing: that congress shall not pass a law which restricts freedom of press. What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Congress has not passed a law that restricted freedom of press. There are laws about what you are required to do in a criminal investigation and trial, but that has nothing at all to do with restricting what can/cannot be printed. Remember, they aren't being punished for printing something. If I recall correctly, 49 states have state laws and/or state constitutions which give more rights to the press. Your dumpster example probably fell under a state law. However, there are places in the US that don't have laws like that.
Click to expand...

Hmm, fair point. I admit that freedom of the press is not my strongest area...
 
If you witness a crime and won't help the prosecution, you can be charged with obstruction. As for now, Judy M. is being held in contempt.
 
Why would an American reporter even print a story that puts our National Security at risk? the man who printed the story is a very sick human being.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just missing something, but how is this case special? As far as I now, reporters don't have to reveal their sources under free press protections. Even if a reporter has evidence relevant to a crime, they are protected by law in not having to reveal that information of their source.

Last year there was a riot at my school, and a photographer for the paper took a picture of some guy pushing a flaming dumpster. The photographer got the guy's name, but the paper didn't publish it. The cops tried to force the photographer to give up the name, he challenged them and won. Now except for the seriousness of the crime here, how is the principle different? Contrary to what many of you seem to believe, reporters ARE special when it comes to revealing information about criminal activity. They are protected in many cases by shield laws and the 1st amendment, and I guess I'm unclear as to the legal nuances that apply here. Simply saying "they know about illegal activity" shouldn't cut it, I think.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Consider the reporters that menaged to get an interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1997, 1998, 1999 (Peter Arnett for CNN, but also ABC, Newsweek and Time). He was already a number-one most wanted by FBI and Interpol, but nobody ever considered lecit to put pression on the reporters in order to get informations about the contacts with OBL and his group or the locations were the interviews happened.
The right to protect the sources is one of the keys of a free media system, if we let this collapse we are getting robbed of one of the most important social freedoms.
One should consider why reporters without borders put the US in the group of country where severe violations of press freedom occour...
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Why would an American reporter even print a story that puts our National Security at risk? the man who printed the story is a very sick human being.
Click to expand...

While I'm fairly sure that's a terrible principle to go by (who the hell defines "national security"?), in this case I tend to wonder. Just why WAS that information published? It doesn't seem especially news worthy.
 
To expose the identity of a CIA Secret Operative... which in turn will also expose ANY Front Group she worked with and could put her contacts at high risk.. =| US National Security Threat?
 
Retaliation against her husband, Joe Wilson, for going on television and discrediting the claim used by President Bush to claim in his state of the union address that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger, claims Wilson.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
To expose the identity of a CIA Secret Operative... which in turn will also expose ANY Front Group she worked with and could put her contacts at high risk.. =| US National Security Threat?
Click to expand...

That is not a defintion, that is an example. I mean, if we're going to ban reporting on anything that hurts our national security, we better have a damn good definition of what exactly that means.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: dahunan
To expose the identity of a CIA Secret Operative... which in turn will also expose ANY Front Group she worked with and could put her contacts at high risk.. =| US National Security Threat?
Click to expand...

That is not a defintion, that is an example. I mean, if we're going to ban reporting on anything that hurts our national security, we better have a damn good definition of what exactly that means.
Click to expand...

When that definition is found do you think the above example will be included within that definition? 🙂
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: dahunan
To expose the identity of a CIA Secret Operative... which in turn will also expose ANY Front Group she worked with and could put her contacts at high risk.. =| US National Security Threat?
Click to expand...

That is not a defintion, that is an example. I mean, if we're going to ban reporting on anything that hurts our national security, we better have a damn good definition of what exactly that means.
Click to expand...

When that definition is found do you think the above example will be included within that definition? 🙂
Click to expand...

Sure, exposing CIA operations people certainy harms our national security. Exposing most top secret information probably falls under that catagory. But the whole other quesiton is whether or not reporters should be allowed to do so.

After all, the real bad guy here is whoever released the information to the reporter in the first place. Reporters don't break into the CIA to get this information, without agency leaks we wouldn't have to worry about what reporters do with information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top