![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Journalism
Aug. 16th, 2006 11:02 amhttp://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-04-19/news/news.html
http://www.freepress.net/news/16914
The difference between those two cases are actually very simple. In the first, there is no confidentiality agreement being voided. Wolf witnessed a crime on a public street, filmed it, and will not turn over the evidence. In the second, a confidential source gave information to the reporters.
That, to me, is the entire issue.
The issue of whether or not Wolf is a journalist isn't important; even if I grant that he is, he's still in the wrong. Nor is the supposition that he'd be covered by the California law protecting journalists. He's NOT PROTECTING A SOURCE; what's he's doing is withholding evidence of a crime.
Journalists should not be able to decide to do that. That isn't what the First Amendment is about.
Protecting sources are a different matter. Without the ability for journalists to do that, they'd have a MUCH harder time gathering news.
I'm surprised people are lumping the two cases together.
http://www.freepress.net/news/16914
The difference between those two cases are actually very simple. In the first, there is no confidentiality agreement being voided. Wolf witnessed a crime on a public street, filmed it, and will not turn over the evidence. In the second, a confidential source gave information to the reporters.
That, to me, is the entire issue.
The issue of whether or not Wolf is a journalist isn't important; even if I grant that he is, he's still in the wrong. Nor is the supposition that he'd be covered by the California law protecting journalists. He's NOT PROTECTING A SOURCE; what's he's doing is withholding evidence of a crime.
Journalists should not be able to decide to do that. That isn't what the First Amendment is about.
Protecting sources are a different matter. Without the ability for journalists to do that, they'd have a MUCH harder time gathering news.
I'm surprised people are lumping the two cases together.