Posted on 02/27/2007 1:30:29 PM PST by SmithL
They're bitter because they want people to believe that there is something, anything, about a reporter, oh, excuse me, a "journalist", that distinguishes them from any other ink-stained wretch.
There isn't, really. In fact, the 1st Amendment that guarantees the right to freedom of speech, is as individual as the 2nd Amendment, that guarantees the right to bear arms.
There is nothing that says you only have the right to speech if you work in a media conglomerate, any more than you only have a right to have a gun if you are a policeman or soldier.
In fact, the right of a "journalist to protect their sources" should not be a hair's difference from the right of any citizen "with publishable information and intent to publish", to protect that information from authorities bent on seizing it for their own purposes.
In either case, the overriding concern is getting that information out to the public, and beyond the grasp of those who would use their political or police power to suppress it, to protect themselves and their interests.
Now, importantly, this should only give either the "journalist" or the everyman a *right to publish*. If the information they publish or their sources have information about a crime, then they might and should be compelled to reveal that information *after they have published it*.
They should not, with a few exceptions, have any right to sit on or refuse to divulge information about criminal acts, either because they "feel like it", or "might publish it someday".
The exception being if that information is only provided to them on condition of anonymity, *and* with the expectation that unlawful retribution would happen to whoever divulged that information were their identity to become known.
It should *not* be able to be hidden from the authorities if the informant just has an expectation of being charged with criminal acts related to the information.
That is, if they give a tape to the reporter of them committing a crime, such as a violent assault, and featuring that crime, then their identity would have to be divulged to the authorities.
If, however, they give a tape to the reporter of them committing a minor offense, such as trespassing, to record a major offense by someone else, such as pouring toxic waste into a public sewer, while paying off an inspector, then their identity could be protected, if there was a reasonable assumption *by the reporter* that it would seriously endanger their informant.
Now, in this case, the man who recorded the riot should have the right to publish his tape in whatever medium he chooses. However, after a short interval, because that tape may show a criminal act, he should be compelled to give it up to the authorities.
The government should not be permitted to prevent its publication, but he should have no right to prevent its use in a criminal investigation.
So he gets his rights, and the police should get the tape.
I agree, however, who is the judge of treason and sedition becomes an important question, and I would love to go a step further, and say outright deception and lies aren't protected either, but then the judgement becomes even more important. The founders had it right. The more speech and the press are free the less we need to worry about oppressive government.
The intertwining nature of all the rights enumerated in the Constitution, play off one another, and I suspect as has generally been the case for two hundred plus years, we needn't get too hung up on what speech or press is or isn't, allowed.
Those who truly value their rights and freedom will know what is truth and what is deception, and what to believe and what not to believe, despite the majority of journalists with advanced degrees from the Joseph Geobbels school of journalism.
There will always be those ignorant souls who will remain ignorant despite the truth staring them in the face.
He's not charged with sedition or printing secrets, which might be a species of treason. He's charged with withholding evidence. There are precedents which provide for protection of sources, if they apply only to government recognized professional journalists, the next step is other aspects of press freedom apply only to government recognized professional journalists. At that point, I think the Founders would suggest that sedition and treason have become admirable in the defense of liberty, just as sedition and treason against the Crown were in 1776.
I think I disagree with this. If I were (as a private citizen) speaking about something and I had sources which wished to remain anonymous i don't think the Constitution says i have to apply for and be granted a 'press pass' to do this. (I am seriously not meaning to be petty about this)
The reason I state this is because this guy did not do anything requiring a first amendment freedom. He (accidentally, you can even say) witnessed a crime- an luckily caught that crime on tape. But for some bizarre reason thinks he has a 'first amendment right' to protect a criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.