Some so-called Weblogs - Internet-based opinion columns published by ordinary people - have hundreds of thousands of readers...
Ordinary? Who you calling 'ordinary', boy?! We have pajamas and bunny slippers! And this isn't Kansas anymore, Toto, so deal with it.
Yeah, well, it USED to be a felony to give out a person's Social Security number, too. In fact, it was a felony to even ask a person for it.
Of course, rules mean nothing to a liberal, and so now the Social Security numbers are out there on everything from military serial numbers to drivers' licenses where any hacker can find them.
Don't expect the gubmint to EVER protect the citizen's rights.
|8||Maybe a journalist's privilege should likewise be limited. Lawmakers could pass legislation that protects leakers who lawfully reveal information, like those who blow the whistle on governmental or corporate misconduct. But if a leaker tries to use a journalist as part of an illegal act - for example, by disclosing a tax return or the name of a C.I.A. agent so that it can be published - then the journalist may be ordered to testify.|
To a professor, lawyer and journalist, like Eugene Volokh, that may seem like a workable solution, but it is just not practical. Fortunately or unfortunately, the technology exists today for the common everyday computer user to transmit secret information to a web, print or video journalist (or anyone else, for that matter) with 100% anonymity.
If you have a particularly burning need to do this, you can begin your "how to" education with this FR article and the excellent links and methods it provides. "How To Steal Wi-Fi (And how to keep the neighbors from stealing yours)". You will also need to spoof the system header info that your computer can append to packets of transmitted data, but that's a relatively simple task.
Note this commonsense precaution: Don't attempt to hi-jack your next-door neighbor's Wi-Fi system and expect to remain anonymous!
Two people conspiring together (an inside source and a reporter) to leak priviledged government information partipate in a conspiracy to commit a crime.
Say that an I.R.S. agent leaks a politician's income tax return to a newspaper reporter, an act that is a federal felony. The newspaper may have a First Amendment right to publish the information, especially since it bears on a matter of public interest. The government, meanwhile, is entitled to punish the agent, to protect citizens' privacy and ensure a fair and efficient tax system.
To punish the agent, prosecutors may need to get the leaker's name from the reporter; but if the reporter refuses to testify because of a "journalist's privilege" to protect confidential sources, the agent may never be caught. Such a pattern is evident in the Valerie Plame matter, where an independent prosecutor is trying to learn who leaked the name of Ms. Plame, a C.I.A. operative, to the press. Uncooperative journalists, including those at The Times, may face jail.
The Times also broke the law in printing the transcript of the illegally obtained private phone call between Newt Gingrich and his legal team.
If the tax returns of a politician are such a matter of "public interest", why didn't we get to see Teresa Heinz's report in a timely manner? What did the mainstream media make more of a fuss about her stonewalling?
This is gotcha journalism.
Anyone who would leak military plans/secrets (whether or not they are ever prosecuted) is a traitor who provides aid and comfort to the enemy.
This is pure "courtesy" that we play like journalists have some special privacy claus afforded lawyer-clients,defendants/spouses, and doctor/patient. BTW, if a doctor/patient relationship is "private", why are gunshot wounds reported to the police?
Either every citizen has the right to refuse disclosure, or none of us do. The media elites do not live in an ivory tower.
Journalists' job is to REPORT news, not make it. They hold no legal prosecution power. If there is a crime committed and they are given evidence of it, hand it over to the proper authorities. If they want an investigation by members of government, pass it along to elected representatives.
Okay, Law Professor - assume basic knowledge of the Constitution and the source of the people's "rights".
The newspaper may have a First Amendment right to publish the information, ...
OPPPPS! Cancel that assumption - Let's change that to read "The newspaper's right to publish the information may be protected,..."
The First Amendment can't give special rights to ...
Dang, there he goes again!!
Is it ANY wonder that the vast majority of the people actually believe that the Constitution grants rights?