[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
(descriptive opinion) It seems to me that any attempt by the government to define "newsworthy" or to effectively create two classes of speech would be a direct violation of the first amendment.

(normative opinion) Journalists don't (i.e. should not) get any special rights or privledges. This includes subponea shield laws &c. They are not more equal people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Privacy rights have been inferred from the Constitution, in various amendments. There is no stated right. It's fairly nebulous and is usually extended only as far as a specific case needs (Griswold, Roe, etc). There are volumes on privacy law, which is still very young. These various zones of inferred privacy and publicity rights have been pieced together over time, and compelling state interest has been a factor in deciding whether or not to infer a right. Balancing tests. Courts have neglected to invoke certain privacy rights in "newsworthy" situations for "compelling state interest" reasons quite frequently. Determining if something is "newsworthy" certainly classifies speech in some ways. But we do this all the time. Lots of speech is not protected under certain circumstances, like when it violates your inferred privacy rights. Anyway, none of this is an absolute. The law is so tangled that the media tries to obtain releases whenever they can. I agree with Copernicus about this specific show, I wouldn't define their actions as "newsworthy" with the repeated installments. To me it better fits the legal defintion of entertainment where a lot of privacy/publicity rights exist. Journalists sometimes hide behind credentials when not really acting as journalists, IMO.

As for the normative opinion, I agree with shield laws. Journalists often get information by promising anonymity. Some are willing to go to prison to uphold their word. Others aren't. If that right were guaranteed, you have more anonymous "tipping". Given the inefficiencies of our legal system and regulatory agencies, sometimes the media is the only way expose very harmful actions by some entity. Including your hated and crooked government. Think Enron or Watergate. Shield laws have their drawbacks too, but I like the benefits more from a public interest perspective. Empty language to an ACer I suppose, but not to statists.