3 ms·
What's interesting is that the shield laws are there for the journalist and their sources. I'd almost argue that it's more important to protect the sources tha
by mrkurt 17y ago
What's interesting is that the shield laws are there for the journalist and their sources. I'd almost argue that it's more important to protect the sources than the organization in most cases.
It's scary to me that prosecutors and cops now have a whole ton of information that may be related to sources for other stories Jason Chen's worked on independently of this particular iPhone thing. What if some whistleblower at REACT was working with him to expose deeply rooted corporate corruption of the task force for instance? It's unlikely, but if a shady officer thought something like that was up, it's a pretty big incentive to go for an overly broad warrant on a convenient public issue.
- tptacek 17y ago"It would be frivolous to assert--and no one does in these cases--that the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws," the U.S. Supreme Court has said. "Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such conduct, whatever the impact on the flow of news." If there is one word that does not apply to this situation, it is "clear".
- hga 17y agoThe First Amendment doesn't, but the Congress in its infinite wisdom could (at least for Federal law breaking). For whatever reason, the California legislature may have done this with their shield law.