[monday]

"Remember all those alusions to guards in Nazi prison camps who just followed orders?"

I would applaud his actions if he were protecting those who were standing up to Nazi oppression. But that isn't what he is doing is he. He is protecting people who tried to kill a man by fracturing his skull.

In my book, that puts him on the side of oppression and death, not freedom. If you need help determining who the bad guys are, it is generally the ones who are using violence to get their way.

"Journalists report stuff that the government doesn't want reported on and then protect their sources."

Sadly, this guy is doing neither. By editing the film and refusing to show the rest, he is NOT reporting anything but his version of what happened. This makes him a propagandist, NOT a reporter.

He is also NOT protecting his source. The people that attempted to kill that man didn't come to him after the fact and whisper in his ear. He filmed them while they were doing it. That means he is protecting attempted murderers, not a "source". He is an accessory after the fact and as such he is just as guilty as the attempted murderers. He isn't a "journalist" in any sense of the word.

[oldfart]

"He is protecting people who tried to kill a man by fracturing his skull."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is still to be determined, isn't it? One side (the government) says they want to know who did this and that information is on the tape, the other says it isn't on the tape and the government just wants to know who was there.
I don't know who's right here and I doubt you do either, but allowing government 'fishing expeditions' into private waters is risky business. Until I know more about the situation I would have to lean toward the side of privacy.