From what I've read, it doesn't look like he was "touched" because he covered the event, but because he, practically, participated in it. I can imagine a situat

From what I've read, it doesn't look like he was "touched" because he covered the event, but because he, practically, participated in it. I can imagine a situation when someone can do it with the sole intention to provide information which can save somebody from a wrong conviction, for instance, but it anyway would require a due process, and a judge to weigh a motive. You cannot realistically have a blanket legislation immunizing everyone who streams, or records - that would be too easy to abuse. So the case doesn't look like Canadian democracy is in real danger. And, by the way, let's not overestimate the alleged sanctity of journalism: they are humans too, as any of us, and there are numerous examples of journalists distorting facts for variety of reasons, starting from personal beliefs, and ending with bribes.