ST Alpha - "It's not the same thing. *SOURCES* should be protected." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 159

In response to "ST, be a constitutional scholar: At first blush, I am bothered by this." by ty97

It's not the same thing. SOURCES should be protected.

Posted by David (aka David) Aug 12 '16, 09:59

If someone is making something up then later claiming sources, it's absolutely imperative that this be revealed.

And you'll note that I specifically didn't describe him as a journalist.

Responses:

But that's exactly my point - ty97 Aug 12, 10:03 10
- I think if the information supplied by the source turns out to be false, we have to weigh the journalist's interest in protecting confidentiality with - mara Aug 12, 10:18
- The problem is that you can then make phantom claims whenever you want and if you called on the carpet, you simply claim sources to get out of it. - David Aug 12, 10:10
- [deleted] 5
  - Yep. This. The First Amendment is a protection against government suppression. This is a civil case. - ReluctantCynic Aug 12, 10:17
  - Where I am struggling (and this is a difficult line to draw) is how you define who is a journalist that gets to claim source confidentiality. -- nm - ty97 Aug 12, 10:17 3
    - your face is a journalist. -- nm - Diewa Aug 12, 10:20
    - [deleted]
    - Legally, it doesn't matter. Massachusetts does not have a shield law protecting journalists in civil cases. But to answer your question ... - ReluctantCynic Aug 12, 10:19
- Then anyone could defame anybody through someone else and get away with it -- nm - Guigue Aug 12, 10:07 1
  - [deleted]

Post a message top

It's not the same thing. *SOURCES* should be protected.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.

It's not the same thing. SOURCES should be protected.