|
|
|
|
|
|
by Neodudeman
5891 days ago
|
|
|
Ok, then how about you consider the following: * A man publishes a watchdog paper on corruption in the police department. * He has inside sources in the police department that he has on file; sources whose lives are at risk if their identity is revealed. The point is, we can both construct hypothetical situations in which this law can protect the just and villainous alike. However, these made up occurrences only distract from the situation at hand, and do nothing to add or subtract from the argument. My original point still stands: The police were breaking the rules set upon them in accordance with the penal code; thus, this break in and seizure was unlawful, and Gizmodo is well in their rights, whatever decision they make. |
|
|
Except for the fact that police, by themselves, can't just go search someone. They need a warrant signed off by a judge, which provides the necessary check against police carrying out a vendetta against someone.
The police were breaking the rules set upon them in accordance with the penal code
Again, this appears to be highly debatable. The law's purpose is to protect sources of stories, and interpretation of the law must be done in that context. EFF wants it interpreted to declare anyone/anything involved with journalism immune to law enforcement. The police, meanwhile, seem to be acting on the presumption that the law only forbids them pressuring for sources, not investigating crimes committed by people who, in addition to suspected criminals, also happen to be journalists.