dahmers love zombie: Kinney told him that if the documents did not reveal his source, Hosey would have to sign an affidavit telling him who have him the records, when and how.Editing is dead.
slayer199: The reporter is farked unless the Sun-Times covers the fines.
Endive Wombat: slayer199: The reporter is farked unless the Sun-Times covers the fines.I thought that the courts more or less could not compel reporters to reveal their confidential sources.
uncleacid: That's some tainted love.
xria: Are journalists in the US completely above the law, like Lethal Weapon "Diplomatic Immunity" style, or do they just think they are?
Aidan: dahmers love zombie: Kinney told him that if the documents did not reveal his source, Hosey would have to sign an affidavit telling him who have him the records, when and how.Also; needs Oxford comma.
Cheron: xria: Are journalists in the US completely above the law, like Lethal Weapon "Diplomatic Immunity" style, or do they just think they are?They are not but they should be. Democracy requires an informed electorate and forcing the press to give up sources limits the presses ability to keep the public informed
Sojianna: Also; needs Oxford comma.Generally AP style doesn't use Oxford commas.
DoctorWhat: The records are named when and how?
boyvoyeur: I don't get it. Even if the reporter does say how he got the info, so what?Reporter - "I read it from a police report left on a desk at the station."Judge - "Um, OK. Um, I guess we are done here."Then what?
danielscissorhands: I believe there's a song about that.
Endive Wombat: I thought that the courts more or less could not compel reporters to reveal their confidential sources.
Iowan73: As far as I can tell, the court has no real reason to need to know who leaked that report, they just want whoever it was to be punished. And since nobody admitted to leaking it, they will punish the reporter instead. The police need to do a better job of keeping information secure.
Literally Addicted: danielscissorhands: I believe there's a song about that.Can't open the link from work...is it the classic Forgotten Rebels song?*peeked at profile*...yep, probably
oryx: The reporter is defending the right of the prosecution to prejudice the grand jury, which is stupid. He is not protecting someone exposing exposing wrongdoing, but someone doing wrong.
Magorn: Now on the flip side it is a tenet of journalistic ethics that you never give up a source you have promised confidentiality to, no matter what, and if the judge sends you to jail for contempt, so be it. Indefinite prison sentences for contempt (IE going to jail until you comply) are a thign fo the past, and at this point the judge can only hold you until it becomes clear you will never comply with his order at which point htey have to either release you or have you criminally charged with contempt of court entitling you to a trial and generally carrying a maximum of 180 days in prison upon conviction
OnlyM3: Oh this is an easy fix. The democrats can just pass a law re-defining what a journalist is and thereby stripping this reporter (and the rest of america) of their free speech rights.
Want the rest of the Farking story? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 21 2017 17:59:16
Runtime: 0.249 sec (249 ms)