ST Alpha - "But that's exactly my point" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 159

In response to "It's not the same thing. *SOURCES* should be protected." by David

But that's exactly my point

Posted by ty97 Aug 12 '16, 10:03

how do we *know* he did not have a source. That source could have been an idiot, or an abhorrent liar, but if he had a source (however wrong), isn't that source protected.

So if we try to force him to produce his source in order to provide evidence that he did not make it up, aren't we violation source confidentiality?

Responses:

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

But that's exactly my point

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.