Reply #20: I am unsure about the last line of your paragrpha [View All]

[bryant69]

At any rate you seem to be suggesting an exception in which if a Reporter was
1). Provided False Information from a Government Source
2). Knew it was false information (or was shown that it was false information).
3). Presented it as true, and did not provide any of the facts the refuted such false information.

The key problem is number 2 - how do you prove that a reporter knows information is false?

At any rate, such a law might be a good idea, but it wouldn't apply in the current issue before us - the Judith Miller case. Such an exception doesn't currently exist - so the question is whether to protect her rights as a reporter or to suggest that she has already abdicated those rights. I understand your reasoning that she has abdicated such rights by her behaivour; on some levels I even agree - just not sure it's been tightly enough defined. When one is carving out exceptions to rights, such exceptions should be, in my opinion, extremely narrowly defined.

Bryant