4 ms·

Second, it can very convincingly be argued that the taking away of such a protection is bad, regarless of if it was in the Constitution or not. I don't think i

Second, it can very convincingly be argued that the taking away of such a protection is bad, regarless of if it was in the Constitution or not. I don't think it's accurate to characterize it as "taking away of such protection", when such protection has never existed. Journalists being compelled to disclose their sources and testify in a criminal trial is not new, and they've been jailed in the past for refusing to do so. One of the more famous is probably Myron A. Faber, in 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._Farber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._Farber), because it led to extensive litigation, but there are many other cases both earlier and later. Another one got a lot of press in the early 1970s because it involved a reporter refusing to disclose who leaked him information from the Charles Manson grand jury: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/06/obituaries/william-t-farr-dies-reporter-jailed-in-72.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/06/obituaries/william-t-farr-... I believe the longest such imprisonment was Vanessa Leggett, who was jailed for about 6 months in 2001 for refusing to testify before a grand jury: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/05/us/writer-who-was-jailed-in-notes-dispute-is-freed.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/05/us/writer-who-was-jailed-i... Maybe such protection should be created, but that's a quite different question from the apparently common, but incorrect, belief that it existed (even as a de-facto practice) and has recently been abrogated.

rayiner 13y ago
> Maybe such protection should be created, but that's a quite different question from the apparently common, but incorrect, belief that it existed (even as a de-facto practice) and has recently been abrogated I think we should have some sort of common law press privilege, like the client-attorney privilege. The tricky part is figuring out who should be entitled to it, especially in this day and age of blogs and whatnot.
- DanBC 13y ago
  "accreditation" is pretty easy, and grants some rights and responsibilities for journalists in other countries. For example, journalist photographers in England get protections for their images that other photographers don't get. The US already categorises people as "journalists" or not with the Visa program. (http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1276.html http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1276.html)
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  That's a pretty intriguing idea, as is a sibling's thoughts on accreditation. Are you aware of any sources that deal with this particular idea, or is it a pet theory? I'd be pretty interested in reading on any legal scholars discussing the idea.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    A number of states have media-shield laws that protect reporters (in some cases, and for some definitions of "reporter") from being compelled to testify about sources in state-court proceedings. I don't know as much about those as I'd like; a plus of looking at them is that there's some history illustrating how they actually work in practice. To take one facet of "who counts as media?" that varies between states, here's an investigation of which states' media-shield laws cover student newspapers and the like: http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=60 http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=60 One issue that comes up for me is that the justifications seem a lot stronger in some cases than others. For example, leaking the Pentagon Papers has some kind of public-interest justification, while the reporter linked above who leaked confidential testimony from the Charles Manson grand jury seems more like he was just looking for something sensational that would sell newspapers. But if a kind of public-interest/whistleblower restriction were included in a shield law, that would add probably undesirable ambiguity.

rayiner 13y ago

> Maybe such protection should be created, but that's a quite different question from the apparently common, but incorrect, belief that it existed (even as a de-facto practice) and has recently been abrogated I think we should have some sort of common law press privilege, like the client-attorney privilege. The tricky part is figuring out who should be entitled to it, especially in this day and age of blogs and whatnot.

DanBC 13y ago
"accreditation" is pretty easy, and grants some rights and responsibilities for journalists in other countries. For example, journalist photographers in England get protections for their images that other photographers don't get. The US already categorises people as "journalists" or not with the Visa program. (http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1276.html http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1276.html)
bobwaycott 13y ago
That's a pretty intriguing idea, as is a sibling's thoughts on accreditation. Are you aware of any sources that deal with this particular idea, or is it a pet theory? I'd be pretty interested in reading on any legal scholars discussing the idea.
- _delirium 13y ago
  A number of states have media-shield laws that protect reporters (in some cases, and for some definitions of "reporter") from being compelled to testify about sources in state-court proceedings. I don't know as much about those as I'd like; a plus of looking at them is that there's some history illustrating how they actually work in practice. To take one facet of "who counts as media?" that varies between states, here's an investigation of which states' media-shield laws cover student newspapers and the like: http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=60 http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=60 One issue that comes up for me is that the justifications seem a lot stronger in some cases than others. For example, leaking the Pentagon Papers has some kind of public-interest justification, while the reporter linked above who leaked confidential testimony from the Charles Manson grand jury seems more like he was just looking for something sensational that would sell newspapers. But if a kind of public-interest/whistleblower restriction were included in a shield law, that would add probably undesirable ambiguity.