Reason.com
New at Reason
Nick Gillespie warns that special protections for journalists could compromise press freedom.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|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.