I wonder if a reporter would feel "obligated" to report a crime they witnessed. I wonder if they actually saw a person pull the trigger of a gun and murder someone in cold blood if the reporter would call for a "shield law" so they could report what they saw without actually revealing the criminals name.

That sure seems to be the case. In the Bonds/Steroid scandal, someone broke the law. Someone was directly told by a judge to NOT reveal information about an ONGOING criminal case. That some person ran to a reporter and told them what they knew, clearly violating the judge's order. Now the judge is ordering the reporter to reveal the identity of the criminal -- and the reporters are refusing on "First Amendment" grounds.

If that's a valid excuse, then any criminal can object to any order by any judge with the same excuse. "Gee, judge, I can't tell you who I saw commit that crime because the First Amendment shields me." How about you just tell us who broke the damn law?

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.