I'm not particularly horrified. We're all in favor of journalists having some right to protect their sources, but when protecting sources turns out to be covering up for criminals, I'm somewhat unsympathetic.
If a journalist refuses to cooperate with the police because the criminal gave him a good interview, I don't see that we should give the journalist a free pass on obstruction of justice.
in this instance protecting their rights does not cover up for the criminal. They have not been given a chance to cooperate, they are not refusing to cooperate, this guy is saying that the threat the govermnent used to tell them that they're going to be requested to comply is heavy handed and illegal. He also points to a similar, though toned down and legal, request connected to enron which was handled better.
basically, neither prosecution nor defence is supposed to be obtaining information from a journalist in this fashion. they are allowed to get information that these people published, but not notes connected to it, though they are allowed to bring these people on the stand and ask them to verify what was published. if the guy gave a good interview, it's admissable without the subpoena, and the fact that one is being threatened for any and all notes connected with the affair, when the notes aren't admissible since they're protected since they were taken by journalists, is fishy. unless, of course, you hold that online journalists shouldn't be considered journalists. even then, what do they need these notes for (since it sounds like the interviews were pretty thorough) and why won't they allow these journalists to talk to their lawyers about the threatened subpoena? no gag order has been issued, and this is not a polite request, this is a ham-handed threat.
on the other hand, this isn't particularly scary, it's frustrating in that it was an inevitable outcome of current society and it doesn't look like it's going to be seriously protested.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
uhm
Date: 2003-09-30 02:28 am (UTC)If a journalist refuses to cooperate with the police because the criminal gave him a good interview, I don't see that we should give the journalist a free pass on obstruction of justice.
Re: uhm
Date: 2003-09-30 02:50 am (UTC)basically, neither prosecution nor defence is supposed to be obtaining information from a journalist in this fashion. they are allowed to get information that these people published, but not notes connected to it, though they are allowed to bring these people on the stand and ask them to verify what was published. if the guy gave a good interview, it's admissable without the subpoena, and the fact that one is being threatened for any and all notes connected with the affair, when the notes aren't admissible since they're protected since they were taken by journalists, is fishy. unless, of course, you hold that online journalists shouldn't be considered journalists. even then, what do they need these notes for (since it sounds like the interviews were pretty thorough) and why won't they allow these journalists to talk to their lawyers about the threatened subpoena? no gag order has been issued, and this is not a polite request, this is a ham-handed threat.
on the other hand, this isn't particularly scary, it's frustrating in that it was an inevitable outcome of current society and it doesn't look like it's going to be seriously protested.
you didn't really need those rights, right?