지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article deals with the issue of the reporters' privilege to protect their sources of information, primarily by analyzing the contents of the U.S. federal shield law.
On October 16, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, also known as the federal shield law by a vote of 398-21.
The Act intends to provide journalists with a privilege, not absolute but a qualified one, as to the sources and information gathered and/or published in the course of journalistic activities.
A federal shield law has long been one of the most controversial topics of the federal legislature since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Branzburg v. Hayes decision in 1972. Over the years after the Branzburg case, Senators and Representatives have introduced numerous federal shield bills, but the efforts ended with no fruits until 2007.
After passage of the bill in the House of Representatives, scholars and commentators now focus their discussions on the appropriateness of the Act, and thereby want to influence the passage of the bill in the Senate. Proponents of the Act argue that the bill protects journalists' sources unless there is a strong public interest in compelling disclosure; the bill is carefully balanced - protecting national security and law enforcement while recognizing limited privilege for the journalists; the bill includes special rules for cases involving leaks of classified information and where the journalist witnesses the crime. Most of all, they claim, the bill is not about protecting reporters; it's about preserving the public's right to know.
However, opponents of the Act argue that such a federal shield bill does more harm than good to the reporters. They claim that journalism seems to be the only profession that believes adherence to its own ethics may include a duty to ignore the law and enforcement of the law. Those who are against the Act also believe that, once the Act becomes law, reporters will be harassed by the government and forced to testify on their sources more frequently than before.
As of November 20, 2008, the Senate has not taken any definite actions on the fate of its version of Shield Law (S. 2035). Moreover, there are a lot of remaining issues that should be resolved before the Senate take actions on it. Even though it will be a long way ahead for the Act to become a law, it is now worth analyzing the contents of the Act to have a model of the legislation, if necessary, in Korea. Therefore, we need to closely watch the results of the legislative activities of the U.S. Congress in the upcoming year.
On October 16, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, also known as the federal shield law by a vote of 398-21.
The Act intends to provide journalists with a privilege, not absolute but a qualified one, as to the sources and information gathered and/or published in the course of journalistic activities.
A federal shield law has long been one of the most controversial topics of the federal legislature since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Branzburg v. Hayes decision in 1972. Over the years after the Branzburg case, Senators and Representatives have introduced numerous federal shield bills, but the efforts ended with no fruits until 2007.
After passage of the bill in the House of Representatives, scholars and commentators now focus their discussions on the appropriateness of the Act, and thereby want to influence the passage of the bill in the Senate. Proponents of the Act argue that the bill protects journalists' sources unless there is a strong public interest in compelling disclosure; the bill is carefully balanced - protecting national security and law enforcement while recognizing limited privilege for the journalists; the bill includes special rules for cases involving leaks of classified information and where the journalist witnesses the crime. Most of all, they claim, the bill is not about protecting reporters; it's about preserving the public's right to know.
However, opponents of the Act argue that such a federal shield bill does more harm than good to the reporters. They claim that journalism seems to be the only profession that believes adherence to its own ethics may include a duty to ignore the law and enforcement of the law. Those who are against the Act also believe that, once the Act becomes law, reporters will be harassed by the government and forced to testify on their sources more frequently than before.
As of November 20, 2008, the Senate has not taken any definite actions on the fate of its version of Shield Law (S. 2035). Moreover, there are a lot of remaining issues that should be resolved before the Senate take actions on it. Even though it will be a long way ahead for the Act to become a law, it is now worth analyzing the contents of the Act to have a model of the legislation, if necessary, in Korea. Therefore, we need to closely watch the results of the legislative activities of the U.S. Congress in the upcoming year.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 미국의 취재원보호 관련 논의의 연혁
Ⅲ. 취재원보호를 위한 실정법 제정
Ⅳ. 연방취재원보호법의 내용
Ⅴ. 연방 취재원보호법에 대한 평가
Ⅵ. 맺는말
참고문헌
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
취재원보호법 도입의 필요성과 쟁점
언론과법
2015 .08
-
미국헌법상의 취재원묵비권
미국헌법연구
2006 .09
-
정보보안 법제의 개선 방향에 관한 연구 : 미국 연방정보보안관리법 문제점과 시사점
행정법연구
2008 .12
-
미국의 독점규제법의 기본체계에 관한 연구
강원법학
2007 .06
-
미국헌법에서 국가기밀 대(對) 기자의 취재특권
미국헌법연구
2013 .12
-
WHAT IS LAW
저스티스
1965 .04
-
미국 상사법의 개별입법화 동향
기업법연구
2009 .12
-
공정보도를 위한 취재원 보호의 입법 방향
한국부패학회보
2018 .01
-
Systems for the Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities in the U.S.
후견
2018 .01
-
업체탐방-(주)ACTS
프린팅코리아
2002 .01
-
[제2부 과학기술ㆍ정보분야] 형사특별법의 정비 및 편입방안
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2008 .12
-
‘김영란법’ 시행이 한국 언론윤리에 미친 영향에 대한 탐색적 연구 : 언론인의 법인식 및 법 시행 이후 보도원칙 준수변화를 중심으로
한국언론학보
2017 .10
-
한·중 환경기본법 비교 : 중국의 「환경보호법」을 중심으로
중앙법학
2009 .08
-
취재원 보호의 적정 범주에 관한 법적 고찰
한국방송학보
2003 .12
-
민법 제1조와 不文民法의 法源性
동북아법연구
2012 .01
-
영국 상사법의 개별입법화 동향
기업법연구
2009 .12
-
국제법상 자발적 인간방패에 관한 연구
한양법학
2011 .11
-
정당행위 중 사회상규의 기능과 성립범위
한양법학
2013 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018463536