Republican AGs push for shield law

Legal Newsline ^ | 9/14/08 | C.Rizo

[jasonmyos]

WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline)-A group of 13 Republican state attorneys general are urging Republican U.S. senators to back legislation that would limit the federal government's ability to force reporters to reveal their confidential sources.

The Free Flow of Information Act, already approved by House and awaiting a vote in the Senate, would bring federal law in line with state laws in 49 states that protect reporters' confidential sources in most cases.

The letter seeks to allay concern that if enacted the law could fetter the government's pursuit of terrorists.

[DustyMoment]

Somebody please help me understand this - why do we want to protect reporters, most of whom are leftists and die-hard anti-Americans??

If they use this law to protect them from revealing who provided them with false information about Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin for example, that, potentially, costs them the election, don’t we have a right to know?? Even if it were false information about Sen. Obama, shouldn’t we have the right to know who that source is??

I’m not smelling free information or freedom of speech, here. Reporters can, and have, gone to jail to protect their sources when necessary, so I’m not sure why we want to extend a right specifically to a class of people who are, by their own admission, not the greatest American patriots. So, somebody, please help me understand this one.

[Batrachian]

I have a better idea. Let's prosecute Bob Woodward for treason, instead.

Better yet, let's just hang him from a flagpole.

[Stayfree]

The letter seeks to allay concern that if enacted the law could fetter the government's pursuit of terrorists.

Given the fact that journalists and the media tend to lie a lot when it suits their agenda, there should be no limit on what they must disclose...not less!

[An Old Man]

"Somebody please help me understand this - why do we want to protect reporters, most of whom are leftists and die-hard anti-Americans?"

It is quite simple really. Whenever the socialists among us are hindered in their plan to foist their form of government upon us, they get their moles in congress to pass a law which prohibits any interference.

[Logical me]

So, somebody, please help me understand this one.

Protecting sources is an important method of encouraging revealing of wrongdoing that would otherwise not be made known. Where this source protection should, and in many states, be revealed in if it is part of a court action. Then this source should have no protection. Sort of providing a even balance between the two concepts of protection. The penalty for false information should be severe.

[mimaw]

I hate lawyers.

[HokieMom]

Virginia has a strong, conservative Attorney General, Bill Bollling. I didn’t see his name on the list. I wonder if that means anything.

[Hardastarboard]

I understand the concept in the abstract, and your explanation is a good one. The issue is that so much of the time no real truth gets past the media filters to begin with, I’m not sure what they need to be shielded from.