Re: [privacy] Josh Wolf Update: Journalist Loses Request for Rehearing

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 11/17/06, Fergie <fergdawg () netzero net> wrote:
> Well, the rankings are somewhat dubious,

SOMEWHAT? That's an interesting interpretation. You wouldn't even go
so far as to say "agenda driven"?

> but the bottom line, I think,
> still holds that press freedoms in Western countries (e.g. U.S., UK,
> etc.) are being eroded to a degree where journalists have to fear
> jail-time for the stories they report on, refusing to identify
> sources, etc.

There's never been a gray line for journalists. They right to not
identify their sources was simply an implied right based on a SC
decision - the Constitution doesn't outline it. Further, when hiding a
source involves covering up a crime or concealing evidence, they're
definitely not protected and they never have been. They don't share
the privileges of a lawyer/client relationship with their story's
subject. Again, they never have.

> Case in point: Josh Wolf.

I must be missing something about this case then...please enlighten me.
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy