Confidential Sources

[Caged Anger]

I don't believe this to be a fair act fo justice. recently a few reporters were jailed for refusing to release the names of their sources. They were convicted and jailed. :down:

I don't think its right. If confidentiality can't be insured, then reporters won't be able to get informants to cough up information anymore

[BobtheCkroach]

Hmmm...good question.

I think that a reporter should keep their confidentialities, but I also think it's fair and right for them to be jailed for doing it. I don't think this should be lumped into the same category as a doctor, lawyer, etc.

In the case of a doctor and such, they are performing a service to the client, and benefit from the knowledge. In other words, when a lawyer gets told something confident, it's in the hope of building a strong case. When a shrink here's a confident fact, it's in the process of helping that person mentally, etc. They may be profiting from the job, but ultimately the person knows something confidential because it is pertinent to helping that person.

I feel that, on a whole, reporters want the information for personal gain. I would say most reporters want confidential information so they can write a good story/win an award, etc. On the whole, I don't see many ways that a reporter could use a confident fact in a selfless way, or at least I don't envision it happening.

I guess I think it's kinda like an extended version of pleading the 5th.

You can't be forced to testify against yourself - your lawyer/doctor, who vitally needed the information to do what was required of them, get covered under that.

A reporter is different. You don't have to tell a reporter, except to get your story out. That's like confessing, the way I see it.

I voted yes, b/c I feel that a reporter should, as a good, ethical human, etc etc, not reveal sources, but I also feel that if the reporter is holding back information, they should be jailed for it. The price they pay.

That's my say.

[Slice]

I say yes. Confidentiality contracts are signed in every day business all the time. Why should they not be afforded this right?

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

I say yes. Confidentiality contracts are signed in every day business all the time. Why should they not be afforded this right?
The answer is easy. Because Big Brother says so.

[Mad Fox]

No one should ever say what there source is!

[FUS1ON]

Let's play a little game of "what if".

What if a serial killer killed someone that you cared alot about. A reporter had somehow interviewed him after he had done the deed and the reporter could prove without a doubt that he was guilty of it with what the reporter knew. How do you feel NOW about forcing them to talk?

[Slice]

Let's play a little game of "what if".

What if a serial killer killed someone that you cared alot about. A reporter had somehow interviewed him after he had done the deed and the reporter could prove without a doubt that he was guilty of it with what the reporter knew. How do you feel NOW about forcing them to talk?
I don't know, why don't you go ask a priest. What is the difference? Lawyer, Doctor, Reporter... These are all people that represent you in one way or another. A contract is a contract is a contract. As far as forcing anyone to talk, you better hook a car battery up to my balls because I have a 5th amendment right to not say a damn thing.

[OUTLAWS Tip]

I don't think one rule applies to all.

If they don't have to reveal their source more information becomes available.

If someone makes up a story, how do we determine fact/fiction. I could say anything and blame it on a bad source, who I would not have to name.

:dunno:

[Mad Fox]

Let's play a little game of "what if".

What if a serial killer killed someone that you cared alot about. A reporter had somehow interviewed him after he had done the deed and the reporter could prove without a doubt that he was guilty of it with what the reporter knew. How do you feel NOW about forcing them to talk?


I don't think you could convict himm by the reporters story because #1 his miranda rights were not in place # 2 it could be considered hearsay????

[OUTLAWS Dixie Chick]

I don't think you could convict himm by the reporters story because #1 his miranda rights were not in place # 2 it could be considered hearsay????

#1. Miranda rights are given by law enforcement officers...not reporters.

Before a law enforcement officer may question you regarding the possible commission of a crime, he or she must read you your Miranda Rights. He or She must also make sure that you understand them.


#2. It would not be considered hearsay, it would be considered a confession.

Hearsay is second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her.

He would be telling what he personally knew to happen, not what Joe Blow
down the street told him had happened.

I agree with Tip. :thumbs:

[FUS1ON]

Slice and MF, you two have missed my point. The fact is that every normal human being on this earth is going to want every effort exhausted to the fullest if they have lost a love one in that "what if" example. Trust me, you are not going to worry about his F'ing rights! :rolleyes:

[Mad Fox]

#1. Miranda rights are given by law enforcement officers...not reporters.

Before a law enforcement officer may question you regarding the possible commission of a crime, he or she must read you your Miranda Rights. He or She must also make sure that you understand them.


#2. It would not be considered hearsay, it would be considered a confession.

Hearsay is second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her.

He would be telling what he personally knew to happen, not what Joe Blow
down the street told him had happened.

I agree with Tip. :thumbs:


I knew what Miranda Rights were what I am saying is would the confession be legal?

[OUTLAWS Dixie Chick]

Yes.

CONFESSION - The voluntary declaration to another person by someone who has committed a crime or misdemeanor in which he admits agency or participation in the same.

When made without bias or improper influence, confessions are admissible in evidence as the highest and most satisfactory proof because it is fairly presumed that no man would make such a confession against himself if the facts confessed were not true. But they are excluded if unfairly obtained.

[Mad Fox]

Yes.

CONFESSION - The voluntary declaration to another person by someone who has committed a crime or misdemeanor in which he admits agency or participation in the same.

When made without bias or improper influence, confessions are admissible in evidence as the highest and most satisfactory proof because it is fairly presumed that no man would make such a confession against himself if the facts confessed were not true. But they are excluded if unfairly obtained.

ok thanks for clearing it up.
:thumbs: