Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (241314)	7/13/2005 9:57:20 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." She was free to report whatever she wanted, and has that freedom every day. Freedom of the press should not include freedom to withhold knowledge of criminal activity. If you want to object to something it should be the ability of the special investigator to require witnesses to testify or be jailed. If a reporter has to reveal their "off the record" confidential sources to the government, then they soon won't have any sources, especially in the government. They'll have less government sources in cases where the government source is contributing to criminal activity. I can live with that given the alternative, which I guess to let the reporter out of their legal obligation to help in the criminal investigation. And it hasn't been proved that her source engaged in criminal behaviour. Innocent until proven guilty. Absolutely - the source is innocent until proven guilty. She's the one who is breaking the law by withholding her information about the alleged crime.

To: Road Walker who wrote (241314)	7/13/2005 9:57:27 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

It can certainly be argued either way. My inclination is to preserve freedoms rather than relinquish them, when there is a good argument on both sides. Let's assume that the leak had caused a mass disaster, with loss of life...would you still feel that way? Al

To: Road Walker who wrote (241314)	7/13/2005 10:02:27 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574005

My inclination is to preserve freedoms rather than relinquish them, when there is a good argument on both sides. She doesn't have the freedom to withhold potentially important information in a criminal investigation. She has freedom of the press, and exercises it every day. If you think she should be able to refuse to provide information to the investigators, which citizens (if any) should be compelled to provide info? With the internnet, we call all call ourselves some type of "reporter". Why should I be required to provide relevant information (if I had any), but she should get a free pass? What exactly are you advocating?