Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Does it mean what does it say about freedom of the press here this case up it says it's very selective and it's a threat to freedom of the press.
Colorado like 37 others 36 other states have shield laws -- its nonessential information you don't have to reveal the source this is not essential information the real question is that the guy pulled the trigger.
And this has nothing to do -- that.
So what she should be protected and the fact that she may not be would have this hearing tomorrow.
Sends a chilling -- if you can't have confidential sources that's just a breach of corruption and that corporations government.
Everywhere else the most basic -- minimum of journalism that that you do not reveal your sources I mean that this is not an eight issue of national security.
-- from -- as you say it doesn't seem to go to the very hot of the case -- walls -- issued -- so.
What are what is the possible justification for for this pursuit of a report elect and I want to.
Well you can understand on the defense side they throw up anything and see -- -- sticks on the wall to get they get their client off.
But what is shocking that the judge would even entertain the thing that should have been thrown out from the get go and -- unfortunately it was set an awful precedent if you can get reporter -- something non essential is that.
That's gonna have a chilling effect if you're a whistle blower you have sources of corruption.
Reagan revealed to reporter if you know that the reporters gonna have to give you up or face a real jail time.
So in terms of freedom the press this gets basic as it gets and and and so.
It would be in your view which would quite simply change the way the people tool to reporters and prevent reporters.
Getting the information that they need to expose the corruption that makes you think twice about it -- and -- With the surprising news mention at the beginning why isn't -- mainstream media hitting on this after all they rose up and arms from.
More traditional reporters and from other outlets -- get get in the cross hairs of the prosecutors.
-- -- -- -- -- Why are they doing that here because of they can get the reporter here I guarantee you they're gonna get him elsewhere right and -- -- -- -- you know if this has been the case it would would have been seen it being prosecuted.
On this basis for not revealing -- -- we would never probably note about Watergate for instance have been a very different outcome and the fact they could to protect that source for decades.
Shows the need for a sensible shield laws and again if she had taken essential information.
And in terms of this trial than now she'd have to give up the source and but this is just an uninteresting.
-- bit of information but that nothing to do again.
With his and guilt or innocence to all right Steve -- chairman and -- -- in chief of -- -- does Steve's article on this if you wanna read it is that foals dot com vice.
Filter by section