The Instigator
Debater_Chayser
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
leojm
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

We should support the free flow of information act (aka shield law)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
leojm
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,047 times Debate No: 37515
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Debater_Chayser

Con

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME AND DEBATE THIS PLEASE

The press plays an important role in our society, informing us about our government and our world. But as citizens, we also have important responsibilities to our government.

For instance, with rare exception, all citizens have a responsibility to provide evidence or give testimony to help solve crimes. "Privileges" not to provide evidence or testimony undermine our efforts to investigate serious crimes by putting certain types of evidence off-limits.

A federal shield law would provide exactly that kind of privilege. Because it could prohibit law-enforcement officials from obtaining critical evidence in important cases and because it gives special treatment to journalists"treatment that other citizens do not enjoy"it is bad policy.

It is also unnecessary. At the Justice Department, we have stringent internal guidelines that prevent us from subpoenaing evidence from the press, except in rare circumstances. To issue a press subpoena, we must first exhaust all other means to get that same information. Next, we must show the information is essential to help solve a serious crime. We apply these guidelines in a careful and thoughtful manner.

In the last 14 years, we have issued only 12 subpoenas to the media seeking confidential source information. We only ask for this information when we truly need it and when we cannot get the evidence elsewhere. For these reasons, a federal shield law for journalists is both bad policy and unnecessary.
leojm

Pro

I only took this to debate, because you plagiarized!

UNACCEPTABLE!!!!

Plagiarized source.

http://teacher.scholastic.com...

But I will still try to debate you even though you plagiarized. My next argument I shall post my argument.

Hope you learn your lesson not to do that.
Debate Round No. 1
Debater_Chayser

Con

Debater_Chayser forfeited this round.
leojm

Pro

Since my opponent FF. I don't have anything I can post for an argument. We will see if he posts his argument in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Debater_Chayser

Con

Debater_Chayser forfeited this round.
leojm

Pro

Unfortunetly, my opponent FF, once again. :/ I would have loved to debate this with him
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
I know right, holy shlt. :/
What the fvck was this person thinking, was he high on some drugs? This is so insane, the guy needs to get a life bro.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
Congratulations leojm, you're scheduled to win this debate in the Ides of March, 2014!!!
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Get this fvcking debate updated. What the hell is taking so damn long. >:/
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Please bomb this debate. This is not worth voting on. Thank you.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Well if he plagiarized, it should be an easy win. Because it is an automatic loss for the opponent.
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
I like the subject, but I'm unwilling to take on the debate for 2 reasons:

1) You've plagiarized your entire opinion except for the appeal for help:
http://teacher.scholastic.com...

Not only did you cut and paste somebody else's editorial opinion without citation, but you've retained the voice of the US Attorney. This makes it appear as if you are an employee of DOJ (I hope you are not, since then you are plagiarizing your boss!)

2) There are few supporters of a fourth estate shield law that support the Free Flow of Information Act. That's because the FFIA does little to change the current balance, while narrowly defining protected journalists to exclude non-corporate or untraditional reportage. In effect, FFIA would remove journalists in the grey areas, bloggers and web admins and DIY'ers from any question of protection.

I would debate in support of a federal shield law of the kind enforced by the State of New Jersey. Defending FFIA is essentially arguing against the intent of Shield Laws.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Debater_ChayserleojmTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by TeaPartyAtheist 3 years ago
TeaPartyAtheist
Debater_ChayserleojmTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Complete conduct violation and forefit