Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DesertRhino

“what was she doing with that source you think she should be compelled to testify against?”

I don’t really care. They could have been playing tiddlywinks.

“They call it ‘conspiracy’”

Conspiracy to do what? Break confidentiality? But the reporter wasn’t under any obligation to stay mum. That was the person with access to the information, and only they can decide to leak. Talking with them about it or publishing it after they do isn’t criminal.

“There are so many ways they can prosecute her it’s ridiculous”

I assume you say that because if the profligacy of laws. Isn’t there a book called “Three Felonies a Day,” referring to how everyone is breaking the law all the time? But think about this for a minute; truly think. If the law is so ridiculous and all of us are liable to be prosecuted for any old reason, how would you ever compel anyone to testify about anything? How would the criminal justice system work? Both’d be impossible.


29 posted on 04/01/2013 8:07:14 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane
the reporter wasn’t under any obligation to stay mum.


Legally, no. Ethically, yes. You promised your source that you wouldn't name him, so keep your promise. If you burn your source to stay out of jail, nobody will talk to you since you can't be trusted to keep your word.

This happens quite a lot, but usually the source (or editor) will come forward. Another way out is for the judge to declare the cops (or whoever) can find out the information they're after without getting the journo to squeal.
44 posted on 04/02/2013 3:45:44 AM PDT by OnlyTurkeysHaveLeftWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson