Reporters Invincible
I wonder if a reporter would feel "obligated" to report a crime they witnessed. I wonder if they actually saw a person pull the trigger of a gun and murder someone in cold blood if the reporter would call for a "shield law" so they could report what they saw without actually revealing the criminals name.
That sure seems to be the case. In the Bonds/Steroid scandal, someone broke the law. Someone was directly told by a judge to NOT reveal information about an ONGOING criminal case. That some person ran to a reporter and told them what they knew, clearly violating the judge's order. Now the judge is ordering the reporter to reveal the identity of the criminal -- and the reporters are refusing on "First Amendment" grounds. If that's a valid excuse, then any criminal can object to any order by any judge with the same excuse. "Gee, judge, I can't tell you who I saw commit that crime because the First Amendment shields me." How about you just tell us who broke the damn law?
Comments
1
Someone had better show me where the words "...and reporters don't have to obey a court order to testify" appear in the First Amendment, because my copy of the Constitution sure doesn't have 'em.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at August 16, 2006 09:37 PM (PzL/5)
2
Good call, Francis. Nor does it include any Right to keep their sources secret.
Posted by: William Teach at August 16, 2006 10:48 PM (doAuV)
3
I think you guys have an "old" copy of the Constitution. If yours isn't written in pencil, you don't have the current liberal copy.
Posted by: Ogre at August 17, 2006 12:53 AM (QmGzr)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0081 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0067 seconds, 11 records returned.
Page size 4 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.