Ursus, protection of sources is a pretty sacrosanct (though not legally unshrined) professional-conduct issue. I think the law's largely based on precedent, though I'm not certain exactly how it's framed, if it's framed at all. Most things here aren't.
Here's one such precedent from quite recently
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=38367&c=1
Why must every article of this nature use either "chilling effect" or "slippery slope" at some point. Seems they're used so often they've sort of lost their effectiveness. Almost as bad as "we believe this sends a message", as far as empty sentiments go.
E10, thanks for that. I wasn't sure if there was established precedent, and I wondered what the legal basis for it was. As you know, I very much think that you would be better off with a written constitution.
WoM, the "slippery slope" argument is lazy (and one of the first things we are taught to argue against in law school), but it is also extremely well-entrenched in legal discourse. And the "chilling effect" of this kind of over-reaching by the government is very much the larger point at issue, not mentioning it would be like discussing plans to build new coal-burning power plants without referencing global warming.
Ursus- would a written const. really help that much?
The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State
(Constitution of Southern Ireland, Article 40 (extract)
Bill: is there anything we can do to temper Worcester Woman's excesses? Might she return to her old job as an obscure head teacher in Malvern?
Dunc, in my view, a written constitution would at least provide a tangible basis for judicial rulings and a brake on the unbridled exercise of executive power. Given what this Bush administration has done in a system with those checks and balances, the thought of what they would have done in the absence of the Constitution genuinely terrifies me.
Of course, as your example so eloquently demonstrates, exactly what is written down can make a big difference.
Comment