So I have access to your credit information and pass it on to a reporter who prints it as part of a story on how easy it is to access people's credit information. I have just ruined your credit by providing that information to millions of people. Some of whom will use it for illegal purposes. Should I be protected? Even though the information I provided was private and could possibly ruin you financially.
Especially if I did this as a vendetta against you. -----Original Message----- From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:56 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Reporters Will Reveal Sources I have blocked out the details of the Plame case but in general the confidentiality of sources is valuable for its potential to shed the light of day on government wrongdoing. That is worth protecting, kind of like freedom of speech is worth protecting even if it's Nazis doing the talking. As I recall the name of an undercover agen was leaked in retaliation for the actions of her husband... that's the one we are talking about? Seems to me an example of the say that hard cases make bad law. Dana On 6/30/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NEW YORK - Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order > to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the > investigation of the leak of an undercover > CIA officer's name. > > In a statement, Time said it believes "the Supreme Court has limited > press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and > that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a > democratic society." ' > --------------------- > > I'm not sure I agree with that. The reporters essentially helped a > source commit a federal crime and I don't believe freedom of the press > extends that far. That is, I don't think the law permits reporters to > assist in a federal crime. > > For example, let's say a reporter has a mob source. Even though the > source is committing crimes, the reporter isn't helping, they're just > reporting on the activity. Or take Watergate, while it was a crime to > release the Deepthroat info, the reporters were reporting on another > crime committed by gov't. > > In this case, the reporters were revealing the identity of a CIA agent > not because of gov't wrong doing, but to explain why Mr. Bush chose an > envoy. And the revelation was not in support of abuse of power but > was actually abusing power. The reporters essentially assisted a > gov't official commit a federal crime and the beneficiary was the > gov't. > > Why should the constitution protect government publicity? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:5:162491 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
