Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
No, that's basically what shield laws are... baiscally what they don't like is this...
"In Riley v. City of Chester, the Court held that a reporter's right to protect his sources from disclosure could be overcome by a party who, by a preponderance of the evidence, demonstrated that he has made an effort to obtain the information elsewhere, that the only access to the information sought is through the journalist and his or her source, and that the information sought is crucial to the case."
The most recent "big" issue being when a reporter was jailed because she gave up the identity of a CIA agent and refused to give up the source of the informant who was thought to have been in the Bush whitehouse, giving away info because of a grudge Bush had with her husband.
Could you imagine what would of happened to a regular citizen if they compromised a CIA agent?
|
Ahh. Yeah I see why that drops the rankings, it probably should do to. I don't think a journalist should be arrested for refusing to name a source.
Edit: For clarification, I believe this because otherwise the government can prevent the freedom of the press through making people afraid to be a source. Probably the same way Freedom House feels about it.
|
You aren't really arrested, so much as imprisoned as a matieral witness.
Like how if a regular person for example, knew who released the leak... they could be imprisoned until they turn him in.
It's really a tough thing to balance though, since what if they aren't even telling the truth?
In general a reporters right is protected, but not when it's a VERY serious crime.
Like the above which would be like... treason.
