Today’s episode takes an in-depth look at the legal protections reporters have (and don’t have) to keep their sources confidential.
We begin, however, with an update on how “Elections Have Consequences,” this time, looking at the state of the House of Representatives in light of last week’s special election in OH-12.
After that, we dive deeply into reporter privilege, beginning with a discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Branzburg v. Hayes and continuing through to the recently-proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2017.
Next, the guys break down the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s take on the 3-D guns. Do Andrew and Thomas change their minds? Listen and find out!
Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #88 about waiver and/or modification of contract. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Andrew was recently a guest on The Thinking Atheist podcast with Seth Andrews. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at email@example.com.
Show Notes & Links
- Some political links: click here to read The Hill‘s report on Trump claiming that he was “5-for-5,” and here to check out the Cook Political Report‘s revisions to House races in light of the Balderson-O’Connor race in OH-12,
- Click here to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), and here to read the recently-proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2017.
- We discussed 3-D guns in Episode 197, and you can read the EFF’s take here. The EFF’s primary case is Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, 814 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1987).
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
One Reply to “OA200: Reporters and Confidential Sources”