Important...Please read if you're a journalist...

The judge isn't doing anything legally wrong. There is no Federal shield law. He can legally try to compel these reporters to testify or throw them in jail. No one is arguing that. What I, and others, are arguing is that there SHOULD BE a shield law for reporters. Do you agree with that assertion? Because that is the crux of the debate.

Do you believe that a free press is compromised when reporters can not offer confidentiality to sources? And if you do, do you agree that the Federal government, as most states do, should have a shield law? If you disagree with my basic premise--i.e. you believe that freedom of the press is NOT compromised when reporters can be compelled to reveal sources, I will then ask you, why would anyone without milquetoast info ever talk to a reporter? Why would a whistleblower who can inform the public of some horrible harm being perpetrated on them ever risk himself? Right now, he is able to rely on the integrity that most reporters in this situation have showed. But it shouldn't come down to reporters' willingness to go to jail. Jail shouldn't even be an option. At least in my belief.

 

Yes, because people who have broken no law, and are willing to take a principled stand in the name of something they believe is spelled out in the bill of rights, should be threatened with jail. No harm at all in that. Throw em in jail. They made their choice. Right.

Of course, if it really is a simple "choice" they made to go to jail, the flip side is that 1) the logical thing to do is to avoid the jail time and just reveal the source. 2) So the heck with journalistic principles, which are the only things propping up this aspect of a free press, when there is no legal protection for it. 3) And with those principles out the window, to hell with confidential sources, who have now have no reason to ever to disclose sensitive information. 4) And to hell with news organizations ever reporting anything that isn't spoon fed to them.

But yeah, there is no harm here.

 

Any good journalism course points out that this sort of thing could happen. And it also points out that it SHOULDN'T be that way. We have the first amendment that guarantees the freedom of the press, and most good journalists believe that the free press is compromised--and the public suffers as a result--when reporters can be compelled to reveal sources.

Just a reminder. An anonymous source brought down the most corrupt president in my lifetime. Anonymous sources were responsible for bringing to light America's secret involvement in Vietnam. They brought to light plans to develop the neutron bomb during the Carter administration. They brought to light the illegal accounting practices at Enron. They recently revealed to us that President Bush had illegally authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans.

Presumably, all of those anonymous sources would have clammed up without a guarantee of confidentiality. That guarantee shouldn't hinge on the reporters willingness to go to jail. That is unjust. It should be legally protected because it goes hand in hand with the first amendment.

The idea of "licensing" journalists is ridiculous. This is a right that is guaranteed in the bill of rights. You don't put limits on it based on two people's ideas about what the rules for journalists should be. What's next, freedom of religion, but only the religions that pass your test for a legally sanctioned religion? How about free speech, but only for people who go to college and pass whatever classes you think someone should have to take in order to have informed opinions in your estimation?

 

jcmacg, I am familiar with the decision. Doesn't mean I agree. The irony is that if I reshuffled the decks of the Supreme Court, as is the case with what the Court has become, I could bring those same cases (there were two other cases that came up at the same time as Branzburg) and it would suddenly become a First Amendment violation. That ruling was passed only 5-4, and as far as majorities go, 5-4 decisions are considered weak.

Also, the way that they ruled in Branzburg didn't create a clear cut precedent. Justice Powell swung it with the fifth vote, and he left manuevering room for reporters in his written opinion. A reporter's claim of privilege should be judged by balancing freedom of the press with the obligation of all citizens to testify about criminal conduct, he wrote. This left it to the lower courts to rule when a reporter has privilege or not and those lower courts have not ruled consistently. It actually created a huge mess of it.