tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post6886484871084422609..comments2024-03-13T21:26:03.011-07:00Comments on Right on the Left Coast: Views From a Conservative Teacher: Law, Ethics, and What's RightDarrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-85029112955249261992008-03-11T19:54:00.000-07:002008-03-11T19:54:00.000-07:00The judge will not allow her employer or any other...The judge will not allow her employer or any other organization to pay her fines for her.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-85883694203981254352008-03-11T17:53:00.000-07:002008-03-11T17:53:00.000-07:00Darren, I used to be a newspaper reporter on a dai...Darren, I used to be a newspaper reporter on a daily and technically "the press" has NO rights any other Joe off the street wouldn't have. But you'd be surprised at how differently you get treated when you tell someone you're Mrs. C from such-n-such paper and can you tell me about "whatever"... instead of walking into a place and saying you want to know about "whatever."<BR/><BR/>But my *first* thought was that USA Today had better stand behind this reporter. Are they giving legal counsel or paying fines for her? It sounds like they are not. But you'd better believe they'd expect her to keep her sources confidential in an investigation.<BR/><BR/>The reporter is in a very bad place.Happy Elf Mom (Christine)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15047347624037697311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-48402762880052328302008-03-11T13:58:00.000-07:002008-03-11T13:58:00.000-07:00I've been following the first case on Patterico. I...I've been following the first case on Patterico. Interestingly, had the man been given the death penalty, then his attorneys would not have been bound by ethics to remain silent.<BR/><BR/>The attorney for the man, by the way, acknowledged that the other attorneys had no choice but to remain silent.rightwingprofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12419372059353408855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-39852766713783460482008-03-11T06:39:00.000-07:002008-03-11T06:39:00.000-07:00Of course it's one-sided, Ronnie--this is *my* com...Of course it's one-sided, Ronnie--this is *my* commentary.<BR/><BR/>I understand the argument in favor of shield laws, I just don't agree with it. First Amendment press freedoms belong to all of us who publish, not just the self-annointed. That's why it's called freedom of the (printing) press, not freedom of the news media.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-14112570972239755032008-03-10T22:47:00.000-07:002008-03-10T22:47:00.000-07:00Your analysis of the second situation is pretty on...Your analysis of the second situation is pretty one sided. Obviously if the reporter has information on a source that he knows could prevent the harm of others he should give it, but otherwise I see forcing reporters to give away sources as destroying the ability of the press to do its job. Most of the time people who give information and request that their identity be secret do so because in some way their life is in jeopardy for giving away the information. If they didn't have assurances from a journalist, most of those informants wouldn't have even thought of calling a reporter and the rest of the world might never have known what they would have said. So many news stories have relied on protected sources and I think to throw away such an important part of our society isn't the "right" thing to do at all. Your right to say that it isn't a right reporters legally have, but I think it's one they should have.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03656997291136912131noreply@blogger.com