The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the two reporters, upholding the rulings of lower courts. In other words allowing coercive measures, ie., jail time for 18 months and longer or massive fines, if the reporters refuse to coooperate by revealing their sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.reporters.ap/index.html larry On 6/27/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought the ruling was that reporters were allowed to protect their > sources? Did I misread the article? > > > Consider this situation, lets say the CIA is involved with > > torturing > > american citizens (its an example), and someone who > > objects to this > > violation tells a reporter. He also tells them that if > > exposed it may > > at least mean jail time for him if not his life. > > > So the reporter writes up the story and the CIA now can > > compell him to > > reveal his sources. Bye bye whistleblower in this case. > > > larry > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:162077 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
