4 ms·
This depends on how you argue ... some lawyers think this is covered under the freedom of expression. As far as I know there is also some international law cove
by kgarten 13y ago
This depends on how you argue ... some lawyers think this is covered under the freedom of expression.
As far as I know there is also some international law covering the protection of sources. Yet, I'm not sure and have no clue about law :)
- lukifer 13y agoI wonder if there is a legal loophole wherein by becoming legal counsel for a source, you are no longer required to divulge anything they tell you due to attorney-client privilege. It would require the right to practice law, but it works on paper (obviously I am not a lawyer).
- mseebach 13y agoClient-attorney privilege primarily protects the communication with the client, not the identity of the client - which is rather counter-productive for a journalist.
- lukifer 13y agoI was thinking in terms of testifying against a client ("They leaked me Document X"), as opposed to revealing their identity.
- weland 13y agoOn the other hand, it could provide some degree of plausabile deniability, wouldn't it? "Sure, I talked to X several times. I also talked to Y, Z and <a gazillion of other people who look important, but aren't>. But I can't tell you about what -- you know, client-attorney...".
- btilly 13y agoA glance at where people are in an organizational structure will usually make the leaker stick out like a sore thumb.
- jeffdavis 13y agoI don't see how this fits with leaked information. Are you supposed to tell a judge that it's privileged information, but you printed it in your newspaper?
- sigzero 13y agoThose lawyers would be wrong. I can see how they would want that but there is no law to back it. Also, the US isn't governed by international law so they would not be bound by it unless there was a treaty and that treaty didn't contradict anything codified in our Constitution.
- jasonlotito 13y agoYou guys are confusing federal and state laws. Many states have shield laws protecting journalists from being held in contempt (there are cases where this is voided, but that's not important). Anyways, while states might have this, this doesn't apply in federal court, as there is no federal law. And journalists know this.
- tptacek 13y agoThose laws are also often qualified, so that the state can't use journalist sources as a first resort, but can fall back on them if other avenues of investigation are exhausted.
- jasonlotito 13y agoYes, I did mention that. =)