by 
gone
ANSWERS: 9
-
I think they can be threatened with libel or slander if they cannot prove what they're saying came from a reputable source or something like that? Depends on what it's over. If they're getting info on a murder they can be jailed for interfering in the process of justice or something like that I think.
-
Hell no. No. No no no. No way ho-zay. Absolutely not. Thats a no.
-
In general, no. There may be certain circumstances that may call for it but, I can't think of one off hand.
-
I think only if someone is getting hurt, should they have to reveal sources. Otherwise, most of the time, people would never come forward.
-
In general, no. The government should not inhibit the free press. If in doing so, they are abetting a criminal, then yes. I don't think that ANYONE should be allowed to cover up a crime, or be able to help a criminal evade justice. Spousal privilege is a joke, too, as well as every other kind. If you are guilty of a crime, then anyone who knows about it and doesn't report it should also be guilty of a crime. There shouldn't be special treatment for certain types of people - especially when all that special treatment does is protect criminals and keep the people from exacting justice. No loopholes. "If you want peace, fight for justice." (and vice versa, if you ask me)
-
Considering the tragedy of what happened to David Kelly, I think that often sources need far greater protection to their anonymity than is currently given, so no I don't. However I'm sure that if I thought about it, there wcould be rare cases where the source should be identified e.g. to allow questioning to foil terrorist threats.
-
Depends apon the situation , in general I would give it a thumbs down but if they are using their protection of a source to stop the proseution of a criminal then I have to change and say Yes. No reporter has the right to deny the courts the chance to convic murderers and child abusers and there are some of these people being protected as a special source The same goes for the police and there sources
-
It depends on the source and the information. If revealing them would lend no help to any person or government agency, then no. It's pointless. If ANY law was broken by the source revealing the information, they MUST be turned in. Those who leak TS/SI are a threat to national security. If the reporter won't reveal a source like this, throw their butt in jail. I don't really care for reporters, mainly because all they try to do is scare us, turn us against the government, and aid the enemy(Hey Mr. Terrorist, don't do this certain kind of banking, because the US is monitoring it, and will catch you. Don't call your friends on these certain types of phones, or you'll be caught by the government. You're welcome. Anytime.).
-
Not per se, as anonymity is sometimes the only way that information can be gained. BUT, if they are in possession of information that is of a serious nature (eg terrorism, murder, child abuse), they should be compelled to hand over that information. I am of the opinion that priests, too, should be compelled to hand over information in such cases, or face jail. As a pastor's wife, I have been privy to a lot of information of a sensitive nature, but if someone told me they had done something heinous, before they even began I would be telling them that, if they were truly sorry for this, the best thing would be to hand themselves in, and that, if they told me what it was, I would be duty bound to go to the police with such information. If they decided to confess it to me, I would then accompany them to the authorities and stand by them. I believe God can forgive anything, but there are still consequences to actions here on earth that sometimes we cannot escape.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC