3 ms·
Then he's getting locked up for contempt of court because he's refusing to comply with a lawful order from the judge.
by mseebach 13y ago
Then he's getting locked up for contempt of court because he's refusing to comply with a lawful order from the judge.
- GrinningFool 13y agoIndeed. And there is a long and respectable history of journalists doing just that: http://www.rcfp.org/jailed-journalists http://www.rcfp.org/jailed-journalists The list is neither exhaustive nor particularly recent, but certainly it shows this is nothing new - there has never been protection for journalists who will not comply with a court order to reveal their sources. The good ones will refuse to reveal them anyway, and face any consequences.
- 3825 13y agoI fully agree. If James Risen testifies, his journalistic career is over. If I was a somebody like James Risen is[1], I would not even think twice before holding any court of law in contempt[2]. [1]: He is a Pulitzer-winning journalist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Risen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Risen [2]: If you are reading this statement, you, your government, and anyone else hereby lose your right to sue me for any reason whatsoever to eternity.
- jasonlotito 13y agoYes, and that's what journalists want to mean when they promise to protect their sources. Now, a state might have a shield law (I believe most do), but they don't apply at the federal level. Anyways, that there is not federal shield law is why journalists generally make a big deal out of them protecting their sources. If it was a matter of course, a protection they were guaranteed, then it really wouldn't be a big deal. It would be a meaningless platitude.