meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Opening Arguments

OA200: Reporters and Confidential Sources

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Law, Opinion, Politics, News, Liberal, Legal, Supremecourt, Harvard, Atheist

4.33.7K Ratings

🗓️ 14 August 2018

⏱️ 76 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the legal protections reporters have (and don't have) to keep their sources confidential. We begin, however, with an update on how "Elections Have Consequences," this time, looking at the state of the House of Representatives in light of last week's special election in OH-12. After that, we dive deeply into reporter privilege, beginning with a discussion of the Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hayes and continuing through to the recently-proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2017. Next, the guys break down the Electronic Frontier Foundation's take on the 3-D guns.  Do Andrew and Thomas change their minds?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #88 about waiver and/or modification of contract.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on The Thinking Atheist podcast with Seth Andrews.  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links

  1. Some political links:  click here to read The Hill's report on Trump claiming that he was "5-for-5," and here to check out the Cook Political Report's revisions to House races in light of the Balderson-O'Connor race in OH-12,
  2. Click here to read the Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), and here to read the recently-proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2017.
  3. We discussed 3-D guns in Episode 197, and you can read the EFF's take here.  The EFF's primary case is Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, 814 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1987).

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

He thought I was going to read me my rights.

0:04.3

You have the right to have your face kicked in by me.

0:06.3

You have the right to have your balls stunted by him.

0:08.4

I'll wait where I'm at.

0:18.6

They're pretty simple.

0:19.8

The forms are all standard, boilerplate.

0:21.8

OK, well, we're all hungry.

0:23.0

We're going to get to our hot plate soon enough.

0:24.5

All right, let's talk about the contract here.

0:26.7

Sorry.

0:31.0

You'd be surprised how many doors a letter from a lawyer

0:34.2

can open or close.

0:36.1

It seems like you're talking slower

0:37.7

since you started charging by the hour.

0:44.6

What's the meaning of this?

0:45.4

This is my quiet time.

0:46.4

We're going to have to take you into custody.

0:48.4

That's outrageous.

0:49.2

What am I charged with?

0:50.0

Don't have to tell you anymore.

0:51.3

Clearly haven't been reading your Scalia.

0:55.0

Welcome to Opening Arguments, a podcast that

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.