Reporter's shield laws

[David Honig]

At 06:12 PM 8/25/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>I agree that John Young should be considered a reporter. And also a 
...

>Still, I think it's possible to differentiate between people involved or 
>suspected of being involved in a criminal act (Clinton, Tripp, Condit, 
>perhaps Vinnie, in your example) and neutral observers and commentators.

Ho-ho, but JY is a known subscriber/contributor to the same Conspiracy List
as JB, CJ, etc.  (As are you..)  Ergo, a sufficiently rabid [per|pro]secutor
could strip you of your 'neutrality'.  (What's to stop Vinnie from
starting a website covering the Mob to gain journalists' protections?)
What's to stop a prosecutor for arguing that a journalist who publishes
mostly in, e.g., lefty mags is not part of the Conspiracy du jour?

What you and Tim ought to consider IMHO is that the 5th amendment's protection
against self-incrimination protects everyone, and journalists don't need
'special' status under such a reading.  

All you need to do is realize how easily you can be painted into a 
conspiracy, or charged with an offense under some 'good-samaritan' 
(compulsory intervention) law.  That is sufficient linkage between
possible-testimony and self-incrimination.  (Except when a grand jury
abuses its ability to grant immunity...another thread.)  That certainly
would have excused JY from answering *anything*, regardless of his
status as a Protected Species or not.

In the case of that author who is writing her first book about some murder
she's researched,  she is probably 'guilty' of not reporting what she's
learned, 
under some screwed law somewhere.