Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The digital environment poses challenges to traditional legal protections for journalists' sources. While protective laws and/or a reporter's commitment shielded the identity of sources in the analogue past, in the age of digital reporting, mass surveillance, mandatory data retention, and disclosure by third party intermediaries, this traditional shield can be penetrated.
Anonymity is seen as a technique, or a way of realizing, a certain other values, such as privacy, or liberty. Over the past few years, anonymity tools used on the dark web by criminals and malicious users have drastically altered the ability of law enforcement to use conventional surveillance techniques. [2] [3]
Washington state, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana have laws limiting confidentiality as well, although judicial interpretation has weakened the application of these types of laws. [21] In the U.S. Congress, a similar federal Sunshine in Litigation Act has been proposed but not passed in 2009, 2011, 2014, and 2015. [22]
A shield law is a law that gives reporters protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court. There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope. In general, however, a shield law aims to provide the protection of: "a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source".
The SAVE Act makes it illegal to knowingly advertise content related to sex trafficking, including online advertising. The law established federal criminal liability for third-party content. One concern was that this would lead companies to over-censor, or to limit the practice of monitoring content altogether to avoid "knowledge" of illegal ...
When you go to work for a company, unless you are in a union or sign a special employment contract, you're an at-will worker. This means employers can let you go any time and for any reason.
The Asahi Shimbun has applied the "Case Reporting and Reporting 2004" as a unified guideline in its reporting since June 5, 2004, which states that "reporting should still start from real names," but also states in "Chapter 4: When Considering Anonymity" that "In principle, we report the juveniles (minors) and insane who caused the incident anonymously.
It has among the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country, according to the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based public interest law firm that releases reports grading state forfeiture laws.