Journalists and the law

I would not be as strict as you guys. Freedom of speech and the press is an important defence against tyranny, way more than guns. I think that the press needs to be given a bot of leeway where journalists can show the story has a benefit that outweighs the law that is broken.

So if a journalist breaks a firearms law to show how easy it is to do, or smuggles a gun past airport security, or steals files which show corruption or uses drugs to uncover a drugs smuggling operation. I would allow that.

You way weakens the press and protects wrong doing.
 
Nessie said:
I would not be as strict as you guys. Freedom of speech and the press is an important defence against tyranny, way more than guns.
Click to expand...
That is just astonishing coming from someone who supports the UK's draconian laws against free speech.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nessie said:
I would not be as strict as you guys. Freedom of speech and the press is an important defence against tyranny, way more than guns. I think that the press needs to be given a bot of leeway where journalists can show the story has a benefit that outweighs the law that is broken.

So if a journalist breaks a firearms law to show how easy it is to do, or smuggles a gun past airport security, or steals files which show corruption or uses drugs to uncover a drugs smuggling operation. I would allow that.

You way weakens the press and protects wrong doing.
Click to expand...

The DOJ and other US Law Enforcement agencies should, and are, doing that. Journalists can do all of that, minus breaking the law.

If you have to break the law to accomplish something, it's not worth accomplishing IMO.
 
WildCat said:
That is just astonishing coming from someone who supports the UK's draconian laws against free speech.
Click to expand...


Perhaps it's like that sort of double standard we often see from those living in places other than the US who seem to feel it's very important to criticize the US.
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
So you would convict a journalist who shows airport security is weak, or proves an official is corrupt? There is no criminal intent in the journalists actions.
Click to expand...

Solution is simple, one needs an intelligent legal system, then one can have a law saying "If one commits a crime with the intent to prevent a bigger crime or avert a far more serious threat and it is the only option to achieve this, then he is not to be punished."

Then the judge can estimate whether airport security or the official was realy such a mess, that the journalists action is justified. (Or he can decide, that although there was a serious problem it was not serious enough to justify the actions entirely and then can hand out a minor sentence)
 
GeeMack said:
Perhaps it's like that sort of double standard we often see from those living in places other than the US who seem to feel it's very important to criticize the US.
Click to expand...

Please evidence that claim of double standard.

I have criticised parts of the USA's gun control and health care system. That is it. You need to grossly exaggerate that into "criticise the US", which is dishonest.
 
Carn said:
Solution is simple, one needs an intelligent legal system, then one can have a law saying "If one commits a crime with the intent to prevent a bigger crime or avert a far more serious threat and it is the only option to achieve this, then he is not to be punished."

Then the judge can estimate whether airport security or the official was realy such a mess, that the journalists action is justified. (Or he can decide, that although there was a serious problem it was not serious enough to justify the actions entirely and then can hand out a minor sentence)
Click to expand...

Exactly, culpability, criminal aforethought, lack of any conspiracy to commit. For example the present phone hacking scandal. Instead of journalists breaking the law to bring down corruption or a specific reason, they did it to find who Hugh Grant was having sex with, or in doing so the caused additional grief to the family in the Milly Dowler murder investigation. As a result they are being arrested and convicted because the means did not justify the end.
 
Nessie said:
Exactly, culpability, criminal aforethought, lack of any conspiracy to commit.

As a result they are being arrested and convicted because the means did not justify the end.
Click to expand...

But there is some risk with such law, mainly that instead of judges one has some left-leaning for-a-better-world acting pseudo-judge. In that case there is high risk that somebody leaking tons of classified government correspondence comprising clear names of informants in difficult circumstances suddenly turns into some saint beyond the law, while someone trying to determine whether a commander-in-chief made a false oath regarding a sexual harrasment case is perceived to be as an evil conservative wrongdoer pursuing a dishonest agenda.

It is paramount that the journalist or whoever can prove that his/her actions were necessary and justified. If not and only feel good arguments can be brought forth, which might or might not have substance (e.g. trying to make the world a better place, by hurting US imperialism and thereby helping Chinese imperialism and local cutthroats could work, but cannot be proven in court), its bad luck for the law breaker - if he thinks his judgement is sound enough to risk braking the law, although he acts from limited knowledge, he has to gulp down willingly any sentence based on the limited knowledge of the court.
 
federal journalist source privilege

Professor of law Geoffrey Stone has discussed the merits of a federal journalist-source legal privilege. Links here and there. "There is nothing novel in the call for such a privilege. At present, 49 states and the District of Columbia recognize some version of it."
 
OK, what about this Sky TV journalist who hacked into the email of criminal John Darwin, a guy who faked his own death to collect some life insurance, got caught and sentenced t0 6 yrs 3 months? Mrs Darwin picked up 6 1/2 years.

The Sky TV person is not going to be prosecuted because it is 'not in the public interest', apparently. That must mean it's OK to take the law into your own hands as when you please. I'm glad that's been cleared up.
 
I'd be furious! IMO, the journalist should be charged with a crime. Hacking....not cool. What if he had not found what he found, but dirty letters to the owner's girlfriend.
 
triforcharity said:
I'd be furious! IMO, the journalist should be charged with a crime. Hacking....not cool. What if he had not found what he found, but dirty letters to the owner's girlfriend.
Click to expand...

Is your tongue in your cheek a little bit there, TFC?

I confess I would have prosecuted the Sky TV journalist and put him away for a few months, like all the rest. The public has an interest in the law being respected at all times and it undermines the law to allow prosecutorial caprice too much scope. The journalist could have taken his idea to the police and told them he knew how to hack the guy's email and the cops could then have done it lawfully. Why didn't he do that? Because he wanted to sell papers, not catch criminals.

The public also has an interest in ethical journalism. What next? Can a journalist burgle my house and rifle my papers because he thinks I might be up to no good? What's the difference?
 
anglolawyer said:
Is your tongue in your cheek a little bit there, TFC?

I confess I would have prosecuted the Sky TV journalist and put him away for a few months, like all the rest. The public has an interest in the law being respected at all times and it undermines the law to allow prosecutorial caprice too much scope. The journalist could have taken his idea to the police and told them he knew how to hack the guy's email and the cops could then have done it lawfully. Why didn't he do that? Because he wanted to sell papers, not catch criminals.

The public also has an interest in ethical journalism. What next? Can a journalist burgle my house and rifle my papers because he thinks I might be up to no good? What's the difference?
Click to expand...

I would not have jailed the journalist as I agree it would not be in the public interest to do so. He uncovered an insurance fraud, sold papers and his action resulted in a conviction for insurance fraud.

The police can get permission to hack into e-mails and monitor communications. The government does it themselves. I can see why the press should also be given a leeway to do so as all three are ultimately acting in the public's interest and doing a public service that would not be possible without such a facility.

If you were a master criminal involved in a huge scam or planning a terrorist action to murder someone and a journalist on a tip off broke into your house as a last resort and as a result you were stopped and they got the story, I am fine with that. I am not fine with breaking in and going on a fishing expedition or looking for gossip or tittle tattle.
 
What about journalists withholding information from the proper authorities, like that recent case with a missing girl's cellphone?
 
Weak Kitten said:
What about journalists withholding information from the proper authorities, like that recent case with a missing girl's cellphone?
Click to expand...

In any case of a journalist hindering an investigation I think they should face wasting the time of the police or perverting the course of justice charges.
 
anglolawyer said:
Is your tongue in your cheek a little bit there, TFC?
Click to expand...

Not even a little bit sir. I'd be furious if someone hacked my email, no matter their intent or their findings.

anglolawyer said:
I confess I would have prosecuted the Sky TV journalist and put him away for a few months, like all the rest. The public has an interest in the law being respected at all times and it undermines the law to allow prosecutorial caprice too much scope. The journalist could have taken his idea to the police and told them he knew how to hack the guy's email and the cops could then have done it lawfully. Why didn't he do that? Because he wanted to sell papers, not catch criminals.
Click to expand...

I agree that the public has an interest in the law being respected, especially by journalists. However, what he should have done, is gone to the police, and let them know the information he had, and let them investigate. They can then get legal warrants, as the situation you described would be ruled unconstitutional, and as such, the entire case most like would have been dismissed. The information gathered from an illegal search and seizure, is called "fruit of the poisonous tree" and as such, they'd most likely have no case whatsoever.

anglolawyer said:
The public also has an interest in ethical journalism. What next? Can a journalist burgle my house and rifle my papers because he thinks I might be up to no good? What's the difference?
Click to expand...

I agree, he'd be well outside of anything ethical, and if he would have done that to my home, I wouldn't rest until he was prosecuted.
 
If the journalist uncovered an illegal gun running operation by hacking your e-mail, neither you nor I would have that much to complain about. Especially if it could be shown that without such the gun running operation would have remained undetected.
 
Nessie said:
If the journalist uncovered an illegal gun running operation by hacking your e-mail, neither you nor I would have that much to complain about. Especially if it could be shown that without such the gun running operation would have remained undetected.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's a lot to complain about. Law enforcement officers--you know, the actual authorized agents of our government--need a court order to hack your email, and they face professional sanctions if they defy that requirement. They even risk blowing the enitre case, if they are found to have behaved improperly during the investigation.

But you'd set aside all the regulation, all the oversight, for anybody who goes to j-school and joins the Investigative Reporters' Club.

You're basically setting up journalists as a special, extra-judicial, extra-governmental class, that in practice answers to nobody but themselves, and knows no law but "because we can".

Journalists are citizens, plain and simple. They can--and should!--enjoy all the same rights of investigating and reporting as any other citizen. They should not be elevated to a special class of citizen, just because they chose to make a career of it.
 
Nessie said:
If the journalist uncovered an illegal gun running operation by hacking your e-mail, neither you nor I would have that much to complain about.
Click to expand...

Well, except for the federal crime that I would be the victim of....

Nessie said:
Especially if it could be shown that without such the gun running operation would have remained undetected.
Click to expand...

This is why opinions on US law, from the uninformed, are useless and asinine.

You need to read up on the SCOTUS rulings on the derivative evidence rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom