The system now works (more often than not). If a reporter is withholding information a prosecutor says he needs, let them fight it out in court on a case by case basis. There is no reason to let reporters have a blanket immunity in all cases. That would make them more powerful than any other people in this country – and they are too powerful as it is!

Saying this makes reporters “into an unpaid law enforcement officer”s is not a realistic argument since all Americans can be compelled to provide testimony on things they witness and face jail time if they refuse. Using that logic means we are all “unpaid law enforcement officers”. Why not a shield law that protects everyone from being forced to testify or turn over anything against their will?

Is balance tipped in favor of the government now? Yes. But at least we choose those people – we don’t choose our reporters. If this is something that is being abused by the government, then the answer is to address the abuse by the government and stop it under threat of the ballot box, not over-react in the opposite direction by over-empowering reporters who we have no leverage with.

It sure sucks that the first comment I ever leave here has to be on a disagreement! Other long-time lurkers: why not post occasionally when you agree with Vincent so you don’t end up like me!

Here’s the problem with your argument. All Americans are not required to comply with court orders. Spouses, lawyers, psychiatrists, priests, and doctors are not required to disclose anything to a court of law.

The problem is that being thrown into jail for disobeying a court order is a contempt charge, which for the most part isn’t “fightable” (for lack of a better term) in a court of law. You basically rot until you comply.

I’m not a big fan of the press, but frankly the first amendment’s purpose with regards to the press is protecting the press from the government and from government interference. Seeing as their role is that of a watchdog of the government, there’s an obligation to make sure that their right is absolute which includes protecting sources. Without the ability to protect one’s sources, a reporter can’t effectively fight a government that’s out of control because the government will always have the trump card of jail time.

It shouldn’t be that way and it’s directly counter to what freedom of the press is intended for.

Feel free to comment more often, btw

- Lawyers can’t be forced to reveal information, but they can’t litigate contrary to what they know. If your client says “I stabber her”, the lawyer can not argue that he did not stab her.
- Psychiatrists, priests, and doctors, if I’m not mistaken, are bound to report if a patient or parishioner reveals they are a risk to others or in some jurisdictions if a crime has been committed.

I guess my problem boils down to making sure “their right is absolute”. You say “Without the ability to protect one’s sources, a reporter can’t effectively fight a government that’s out of control”. So the answer is to give so much power to the press that we risk them getting out of control? You don’t think the press will abuse absolute immunity?

As I said, why not go to the root of the problem – government abuse of throwing journalists in jail? Make the burden of proof on the prosecutor more stringent. Make the charges more “fightable”. Spell out in advance the types of things that can be withheld and what may not be.

If we’re only talking about a reporter protecting a source, I’m with giving them some more protection they they now have (but not absolute immunity). But if we’re talking actual evidence of a crime being committed, then I just don’t have a lot of sympathy for reporters (assuming the authorities aren’t on a “fishing expedition”).

I’ll try to join in more often! As I said, we’re usually in agreement! I’m with you on the breast-feeding thing for example! But for goodness sakes, did you have to put that picture of Streisand up! The goggles do nothing!

James: Just as there are restrictions – as you point out for lawyers, doctors, etc. – there ARE restrictions on what a reporter can withhold, as well. They can only withhold the name (or other identifying information) of their source. That’s it. The information that’s been disclosed is out in the open, but the source is what is protected. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Regarding the government’s ability to keep secrets: This sickens me to death. How in God’s name could the Bush admin consider this latest “leak” of info regarding how all of our spy agencies think this war in Iraq has INCREASED terrorism as Top Secret or Classified or whatever it is? Someone’s ass needs to be beaten to a pulp for witholding this info from the American public.

We hire these assholes to work for us, not the other way around.

Finally, I think that Josh guy should be compelled to turn over the film. It’s evidence. Just as you can be compelled to testify at a trial, even if you didn’t intend on witnessing the crime, our law has a long tradition of requiring testimony or the turning-over of evidence. This has nothing to do with protecting sources.