> I don't see how this affects whistle blowers? Here's how.
Since the Supreme Court has now ruled that the reporters can be compelled to give up their sources, it means that by extension this case law can be cited in order to compel reporters in other types of cases, of course it will still be up to the judges in _those_ hypothetical cases to make that ruling, but get some judge who is willing and there you have it. The time after that it becomes easier for a judge to make the ruling agreeing with not only the SC ruling but with case law where other judges have made comparable rulings... I know it is a slippery slope argument to some extent, but for some reason I see this sort of thing happening much more readily that making it legal to marry a goat (you know, the other slippery slope argument...)... > In this case the source needs to be revealed because the source > committed a crime or was party to the crime. If a whistler blower is > not committing a crime why would they need to be named? If there is no > crime on the part of the source then there should be no reason to reveal > a source. > I do believe it would have an impact on government leaks. As do I. -- will "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; and that would just be unacceptable." - Carrie Fisher ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:162522 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
