|
new topic?
Reporters may know answers to whether the admin illegally released info on a CIA agent.
The reporters refuse to answer questions for a special prosecutor.
Judge threatens them each with contempt and jail.
Question:
Does the first amendment or anything else give reporters an unfettered right to protect sources?
Does the first amendment or anything else give reporters a fettered right to protect sources? If so, where do we draw the line? Personally, for anything involving well-defined state secrets, I'm in favor of locking reporters up indefinitely so that people understand there is no protection. There can be no protection for the act itself of talking to a reporter, so how can there be protection to encourage people to commit such acts?
All of that said, why the fuck don't they go right to the source and throw Novak in?
Anyway, kudos to the judge.
Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'
|
