Shield Laws

I don't agree with them. Honestly, I think they would cause more harm than good. Suppose a journalist couldn't be prosecuted for refusing to reveal a source. What's to keep one from publishing abject lies and claiming a source told them? I think the 'cure' is better than the disease in this case. Let's take it on faith that journalists ethics aren't so far above everyone else's. If you know of a crime you have a moral obligation to say somthing. Above and beyond that you've a legal obligation to testify. If that holds for presidents and judges, it should certainly hold for reporters.

On the other hand, it is a shame when you have people locked up for stories they never even wrote. (And of course the guy who did publish the news running free) Now maybe he heard from one of the other reporters. Maybe the story was good and leaked long before it was published. The whole deal is shady.

In Lanky's world, reporters would be more discreet. Truly anonymous sources (unknown to even the reporter) could made a leak. The reporter would then decide whether or not to write a story. If writing a story the reporter would be obligated to determine the source, and subsequently protect it. If the reporter doesn't want to publish he/she has no definitive knowledge and can say whatever. That is the risk the source takes, but still anonymously. On the other hand if the story is published, the reporter should strive to protect the source (purely out of professional ethics). That is a risk of agreeing to publish. If the reporter thinks it is too hot, perhaps a referral is order. Reporters should not have legal protection. Maybe some go to jail...let it be known as a risk (and I'm talking relatively light sentences). Maybe some roll on their sources...let sources choose reporters carefully. I think this moderate approach preserves both the rule of law and the protection of the state. Maybe there is a story that is so big it is worth going to jail for. Ask Woodward.