New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | June 29, 2005

Nick Gillespie warns that special protections for journalists could compromise press freedom.

Comments

|6.29.05 @ 5:50PM|#

I have never understood the reason that these two won't talk. These people were first hand witnesses to a possible felony, commited by their "source". I understand journalists getting a shield from having to pass on hearsay or confidential information just like a doctor or a lawyer. But if you are in your doctors office and shoot someone they would expect your doctor to testify.

Now if we think that the law about protecting the names of CIA agents is wrong, well that is one thing. But assuming the law is right I just don't see why the journalists need this privledge. The only time this would apply is when their source commits a felony by divulging information.

Julian Sanchez|6.29.05 @ 6:35PM|#

I'm pretty sure the account of shield laws above is mistaken. If your doctor or lawyer becomes aware of a felony you've committed, they are not required to testify about it--and indeed, may well be prohibited by professional ethics from doing so.

|6.29.05 @ 6:35PM|#

I agree with Nick that it's creepy for the governement to decide who is or is not a journalist; but I also don't like the government deciding who is a lawyer, doctor, clergy, or spouse. Maybe everybody should be compelled to testify against their will, or nobody.

|6.29.05 @ 6:38PM|#

After thinking another 45 seconds about this, I'm leaning toward nobody.