Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, addressing a question to a federal lawyer during an appellate hearing this week:
"Are you arguing then that there is a per se rule that it is never, when it involves a criminal prosecution, there is never any possibility of an academic privilege?...It's not clear to me whether you are arguing that there is an automatic rule that the First Amendment can never trump a criminal prosecution, or whether you are saying in most cases a criminal prosecution is a sufficiently legitimate government interest to override any First Amendment claim being made."
The important part of the lawyer's answer: "I can't think of where it would."
Prosecutors and university lawyers will be citing these cases for decades. The outcome will echo long and loud.
10 comments:
Trepidation in the Senate over BC
Researchers face wait in US court battle over IRA tapes
Court hears of possible threat to researchers in BC case
IRA members face ‘grave physical danger’ if recordings made for American college’s project are handed to British authorities, U.S. court hears
Anthony,
you and Ed Moloney wqanted to record history, now you are clearly making it!
Andre,
unfortunately so.
It's unfortunate they let it go this far and BU let you hand out to dry. I'm sure you would both have liked to stay out of the limelight per se.
Federal Appeals Court Hears Arguments in IRA Oral-History Case
HET enquiries must be even-handed: Victims commissioner
Dianaimh,
certainly not worth the limelight!
BC rather than BU
Post a Comment