Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

Where is the line? In the past I’ve been contacted a few times randomly by journalists who - by the tone of the conversation - are trying to get me to tell them something confidential that they can form a story around. I am not a lawyer but leaking confidential information or breaking an agreement with your employer can be a criminal act you can be taken to court for, and I would think someone (like the press) aiding in the dissemination of confidential information is also engaging in a criminal act. Why should the press get special protection above any other citizen in this regard?

View on HN

Well, I mean, because the supreme court said that they get special treatment. [0]

The rationale is that it's too easy for politicians/officials to hide things from the public by arbitrarily declaring things as "secret", and that the public has the right to know about this stuff.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...

So does that mean anyone can leak confidential information from any company or government agency without accountability and without recourse for those harmed?

No, that means that the journalist who publishes the information (who signed no such classified agreement) wouldn't have accountability for things that aren't directly related to national security. The individual actually doing the leaking could still be prosecuted.

The people are far more important than the government, agencies, or corporations.

These entities care for nothing but power, vying for it every moment, corrupting everything they can corrupt to get more of it.

It is essential to have a spotlight on them exposing when they go too far.

> Why should the press get special protection above any other citizen in this regard?

In other words, why shouldn’t we punish whistleblowers?

Because otherwise we would be on a fast track to an authoritarian dystopia.

As a journalist I can tell you that an important portion of what we report comes from sources that divulge proprietary, secret, or classified info.

Journalists don’t give up their sources due to the risks you are highlighting.

Anyway - for a open society to function we need to live in the same factual world and media contribute to that.

Why should religious groups get special dispensation to discriminate against protected groups, even when performing work for the government?

Both are based in the first amendment. IMO the press protections are a more legitimate application, particularly wrt to information that is ultimately about public policy.

I'd argue against referencing your constitution since its not my constitution, but to my knowledge Buzzfeed is a US corporation, so I guess it still applies.

Breaking an agreement with your employer is a civil act, at least in the US. "Confidential" information is a pretty broad designation as well, so things like insider trading and trade secrets can be a criminal act but other "confidential information" your company deems so might only be a civil violation or perhaps not even that if it's not covered by signed contracts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com