Comment This is really bad because he is a journalist (Score 1) 457
What the earlier commentators miss is that journalists do have shield-laws to protect them for divulging their sources. This is so that the first amendment means something. This allows mud-racking journalists (few and far between in MSM) to protect their sources. For example, remember Mark Felt (aka. Deep Throat), the guy who brought down Nixon? Because he was talking to journalists, he knew that Woodward and Bernstein could refuse to talk under subpoena.
This is important if the press is going to be able to do their job and uncover corruption.
Now also think about this. What defines a "journalist" especially these days? A steady paycheck from an organization that owns a "newspaper" or a "tv station" or a "radio station"? If someone uses the public access station on cable to broadcast muckraking esposes on local politicians, does that make him any less (or more) of a journalist appearing on NBC or doing his own blog?
Think about Dan Gillmor. He no longer works for the Mercury News in San Jose, but he is reporting only on the internet. Is he now no longer a journalist?
Finally, how long is Josh going to be locked up? Are we going to allow an indefinite sentence? (Which in the U.S. is supposed to be illegal?). Are we going to make someone's refusal to talk about a "crime" result in a harsher punishment than the crime itself? Are we going to make it so that everyone is compelled to spy on and report the actions of their neighbor?
All the "law and order" types really need to think about the fact that civil society only respects "law and order" if everyone is equal. And journalists help find public corruption. Corruption which goes unpunished breaks down a society's respect for the law. "Journalists" or people who act as journalists by reporting to the public at-large, whatever their media, deserve the highest protection.
This is important if the press is going to be able to do their job and uncover corruption.
Now also think about this. What defines a "journalist" especially these days? A steady paycheck from an organization that owns a "newspaper" or a "tv station" or a "radio station"? If someone uses the public access station on cable to broadcast muckraking esposes on local politicians, does that make him any less (or more) of a journalist appearing on NBC or doing his own blog?
Think about Dan Gillmor. He no longer works for the Mercury News in San Jose, but he is reporting only on the internet. Is he now no longer a journalist?
Finally, how long is Josh going to be locked up? Are we going to allow an indefinite sentence? (Which in the U.S. is supposed to be illegal?). Are we going to make someone's refusal to talk about a "crime" result in a harsher punishment than the crime itself? Are we going to make it so that everyone is compelled to spy on and report the actions of their neighbor?
All the "law and order" types really need to think about the fact that civil society only respects "law and order" if everyone is equal. And journalists help find public corruption. Corruption which goes unpunished breaks down a society's respect for the law. "Journalists" or people who act as journalists by reporting to the public at-large, whatever their media, deserve the highest protection.
