--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 2:49:12 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Well, I suppose if I knew about some criminal activity that > endangered > > the lives of government employees or anybody else, I would have to > go public > > with it. What is more important, my journalistic word to a > criminal or > > somebody protecting one, or the lives of innocent people? > > And if you were a lawyer who knew something under attorney client > priveledge? > > > > > If I were a lawyer I guess I wouldn't be concerned about what was morally > right, just what was legal.
My point being why does everyone accept without question the need for lawyer/client privelgde but scoffs at reporter/source priveledge. The latter is the foundation of the fourth estate. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
