Wouldn't it be better to have a watertight law designed to catch the guilty, rather than a press release law designed to catch the headlines?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There is no higher claim to journalistic integrity than going to jail to protect a source.
I know a lot of reporters certainly will go to jail to defend confidential sources. Some have even gone to jail for an issue like this. But I can't say that's the norm.
It is within the last quarter century or thirty years. And a lot of that law has turned out to be very, very protective of the press and the public's right to know.
It's extremely damaging to a fair trial to have people reaching judgment about the case in the newspapers and on the radio before the facts are heard in a case.
Withholding information that would get innocent people killed was the right thing to do, not a journalistic sin.
Our constitutionally-based criminal justice system places a high value on protecting the innocent. Among its central tenets is the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
When it comes to those who are accused and their right to defend themselves, it is perfectly reasonable to expect relevant evidence to be made public, and I am in favour of open justice.
One of the risks of a public trial is a public verdict.
The government would be able to go to court with respect to newspaper articles, broadcast pieces and the like that they thought were bad or harmful or even against the government and try to block them.
It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.