Scooter Libby is Judy Miller's source

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think journalists should have privileges that regular people don't have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes --- the press is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an instutition that should get special protections.

[/ QUOTE ]

It says that the freedom of speech, or of the press may not be abridged. That doesn't imply special protection.

Besides - I didn't ask what the constitution says. It's not infallible.

If "the press" gets special protection, how do you determine who is "the press" and who isn't? How many journalists have a license from the government? Do you really want government licensing of journalists?

[Greg J]

I think you are totally right pvn. The press is not entitled to specific protections. However, journalists are still, in my mind, bound by ethics to disobey the law sometimes, with the understanding that they be ready to serve jail time sometimes. Both the DA and Miller were right here IMO.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think journalists should have privileges that regular people don't have?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the government should be deciding who is a "protected" journalist and who isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
No

[bholdr]

also, what if the journalist's source were a criminal (like, say, in, oh, i dunno... THIS case.)?


imo, of course.

[Jdanz]

best response yet.

laws aren't morals aren't ethics

[nicky g]

"Do you think journalists should have privileges that regular people don't have?"

Yes. It's extremely healthy for society if journalists can report on things that we otherwise wouldn't know about. Making journalists reveal criminal sources is of no benefit to law enforcement in the long run as it simply means those sources will no longer go to journos. It makes law enforcement no wiser and the public as a whole less informed.

However, in this case I'm not sure this should apply, as the source was not talking about a crime already committed but actually committing a crime (arguably anyway) by passing on that information. Journalists should be free to interview criminals etc about criminal activities without having to reveal who those criminals are, but they shouldn't be used as conduits for criminal activities.

The question of who qualifies as a journalist is a difficult but not exactly intractable one.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think journalists should have privileges that regular people don't have? Do you think the government should be deciding who is a "protected" journalist and who isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course journalists should have privileges that regular people don't have. They are the most important agent in allowing for a free society. Without a press free from government interference, there can not be the free exchange of information. I certainly see government pressure on a journalist to reveal a confidential source as an impedement to a free press.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, undoubtedly. However, I still don't think that the government should be pressuring journalists into revealing confidential sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think journalists should have privileges that regular people don't have? Do you think the government should be deciding who is a "protected" journalist and who isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point... I write for some blog sites and I post here... does that qualify me as a "reporter"...

Should I not be required to report potentially important national security information because I "report" on peoples opinions?