Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Freedom of the press protects the right of the press to publish things.

It does not[1] protect any agreements made to secure that publishing. If you guarantee your source anonymity or a million dollars and you later can't deliver because someone emptied the bank account or eavesdropped or a court compelled you to testify, that has nothing to do with your right to publish. It may affect your ability to publish but so do locked doors and I don't see anyone saying freedom of the press should trump trespassing rules.

If bystander Amy is witness to Bob's crime and subpoenaed and under oath she can either tell the court the truth of what happened, perjure herself or not answer and be held in contempt. Freedom of the press, attorney-client and doctor-patient privileges should provide zero protection here.

[1] Generally in the US. Many states have shield laws and protected in various other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_State...



It has been held by many courts that the ability to keep sources secret aids in the flow of knowledge to the public and allows the press to function.

Floyd Abrams has an entire chapter on it in "Friend of the Court."


It certainly aids in the flow of knowledge to the public but so would a lot of clearly not allowable things like hacking celebrity phones.


Yes, I'm not defending illegal acts, but it seems that many cases, _e.g._: Pentagon Papers and Watergate, could have only been done with protected confidential-sources.


I'm not sure how persuasive that is because those things happened without the claimed protection. The reporter can certainly gain trust by saying he's willing to go to jail to protect the source.


It's been pretty persuasive to this point, hence the shield laws that almost all states have put in place.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: