5 ms·

Former Fox News Reporter Ordered by Judge to Reveal Anonymous Source

10 points by woldemariam 3y ago

fyzix 3y ago
Judges becoming polical hacks is the last nail in the coffin of the free world.
- hulitu 3y ago
  The free world is long dead. They only keep a puppet at the window so you think it's still alive.
- consumer451 3y ago
  > Judges becoming polical hacks is the last nail in the coffin of the free world. Lazy, myopic political comments are the last nail in the coffin of HN.
jdjdjdhhd 3y ago
[flagged]
_8j50 3y ago
> "But applying the binding case law of this Circuit, the Court concludes that Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case.” Looks like the judge is just following precedent, he wants them to appeal this decision and get higher circuit judge to make the decision. But tbh, I don't get why the press gets to protect a source when the very fact of them sourcing the story is illegal. Doesn't amount to obstruction of justice, to conceal their identity? Can the press talk to criminals and then hide the criminal's identity from the court when being sued for damages? Or is leaking that information not a crime at all?
- the_lego 3y ago
  Does simple non-cooperation with law-enforcement count as "obstruction"?
  - LegitShady 3y ago
    in most jurisdictions obstruction is a physical act
  - _8j50 3y ago
    I believe so, as long as it can be poven beyond doubt that your cooperation would lead to convicting a criminal. But IANAL!
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago
  >But tbh, I don't get why the press gets to protect a source when the very fact of them sourcing the story is illegal. Because the 1st Amendment supersedes any laws that are passed to criminalize journalism. Unfortunately our judiciary (and government as a whole) has been going off the rails for decades and our Constitutional rights matter less and less every day.
  - tssva 3y ago
    > Because the 1st Amendment supersedes any laws that are passed to criminalize journalism. I can't seem to find the part in the 1st amendment which says reporters have an absolute right to not reveal their sources.
    - StanislavPetrov 3y ago
      I'll help you find it. > First Amendment >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or >of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition >the Government for a redress of grievances Abridge means, "to limit or curtail". By any reasonable definition, forcing reporters to reveal their sources abridges freedom of the press (if not crippling it all together).
      - tssva 3y ago
        > By any reasonable definition, forcing reporters to reveal their sources abridges freedom of the press (if not crippling it all together). The 1st amendment doesn't explicitly site protecting of sources and it is up to interpretation. My interpretation doesn't include absolute protection of sources and those tasked with interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court, don't see it that way either. Protection of sources has always been found to be a limited right. Even the speech part of the 1st amendment has been found to be limited in some ways.
        StanislavPetrov 3y ago

10 points by woldemariam 3y ago

fyzix 3y ago

Judges becoming polical hacks is the last nail in the coffin of the free world.

hulitu 3y ago
The free world is long dead. They only keep a puppet at the window so you think it's still alive.
consumer451 3y ago
> Judges becoming polical hacks is the last nail in the coffin of the free world. Lazy, myopic political comments are the last nail in the coffin of HN.

jdjdjdhhd 3y ago

[flagged]

_8j50 3y ago

> "But applying the binding case law of this Circuit, the Court concludes that Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case.” Looks like the judge is just following precedent, he wants them to appeal this decision and get higher circuit judge to make the decision. But tbh, I don't get why the press gets to protect a source when the very fact of them sourcing the story is illegal. Doesn't amount to obstruction of justice, to conceal their identity? Can the press talk to criminals and then hide the criminal's identity from the court when being sued for damages? Or is leaking that information not a crime at all?

the_lego 3y ago
Does simple non-cooperation with law-enforcement count as "obstruction"?
- LegitShady 3y ago
  in most jurisdictions obstruction is a physical act
- _8j50 3y ago
  I believe so, as long as it can be poven beyond doubt that your cooperation would lead to convicting a criminal. But IANAL!
StanislavPetrov 3y ago
>But tbh, I don't get why the press gets to protect a source when the very fact of them sourcing the story is illegal. Because the 1st Amendment supersedes any laws that are passed to criminalize journalism. Unfortunately our judiciary (and government as a whole) has been going off the rails for decades and our Constitutional rights matter less and less every day.
- tssva 3y ago
  > Because the 1st Amendment supersedes any laws that are passed to criminalize journalism. I can't seem to find the part in the 1st amendment which says reporters have an absolute right to not reveal their sources.
  - StanislavPetrov 3y ago
    I'll help you find it. > First Amendment >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or >of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition >the Government for a redress of grievances Abridge means, "to limit or curtail". By any reasonable definition, forcing reporters to reveal their sources abridges freedom of the press (if not crippling it all together).
    - tssva 3y ago
      > By any reasonable definition, forcing reporters to reveal their sources abridges freedom of the press (if not crippling it all together). The 1st amendment doesn't explicitly site protecting of sources and it is up to interpretation. My interpretation doesn't include absolute protection of sources and those tasked with interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court, don't see it that way either. Protection of sources has always been found to be a limited right. Even the speech part of the 1st amendment has been found to be limited in some ways.
      - StanislavPetrov 3y ago