Moving on to the third potential resolution, we get Resolved: In the United States, reporters ought to have the right to protect the identity of confidential sources.
This one is similar to the 1999 January-February resolution: Resolved: in the United States, a journalist’s right to shield confidential sources ought to be protected by the First Amendment.
Doing a quick search of shield laws, I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that South Dakota has no shield law protecting reporters. Now that a small bit of my daily supply of sarcasm has been expended, let's move on, shall we.
This resolution, like many recent resolutions, allows negs to play the "affirmatives have to defend the absolute protection of confidential sources in all instances even the times when the source knows the location of a nuclear warhead that has had its fissionable materiel combined with weaponized Ebola and smallpox and the timer is ticking" card. I also worry a bit that the #fakenews red herrings or discussions of whether Alex Jones or other of his ilk are actual reporters may move debates from the core element of First Amendment protections.
Those caveats aside, this resolution seems to allow both the philosophical and policy folk to construct cases and argue. Since 1999, Snowden, Manning, and numerous whistle-blowers have provided reporters with information. Reporters have been jailed for refusing to reveal their sources. We have seen the rise of hackers who obtain and publish information without the need for human sources. All of these issues can fit into the debate along with the standard argument about whether the good of the public or the individual good should be weighed as more important. This resolution also provides for a debate about whether the public good is best served by secrecy or knowledge.
I'll wait until I have mused about all ten resolutions to do a final rating, but I have few concerns about this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment