Confidential means nothing to the NY Times

Should the media be allowed to use the freedom of speech to reveal confidential info?

  • yes

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • no

    Votes: 6 54.5%

  • other (please explain

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Total voters
    11
ismi said:
Healthcare is also not a "professional legal service", but my doctor is not permitted to disclose my health information without my permission; a marriage is not a "professional legal relationship", but spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other. The law you cite specifically refers to privilege in the case of attorney-client relations, but that doesn't bar similar privileges applying to other fields. Try again, Sculley.
Click to expand...

Healthcare is his profession. To make my point, if the information does not fall under the professional's or spouse's duties, it is not protected. So far, unless the hitman-client privilege exists, planning a murder does not fall under any professional jurisdiction, and is thus, not protected. The AC privilege is the model for ALL relationship privileges. I cited a University of Chicago file to support that. Thus, I will not need to try again. You just need to read what I linked.
 
sculleywr said:
Federal law trumps all laws. No law, bylaw, or statute may contradict Federal law. The section of law I speak of is the section dealing with lawyer/doctor/priest/spouse/lifeguard/other to client laws. The section in rule 502 states the following:

General Rule of Privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Now, I know that federal law cannot trump constitutional law. How does the implied right of privacy recognized by the SCOTUS fit in to revealing confidential information which could prevent a crime?

It just seems to me that any bit of legal maneuvering that permits one to circumvent a constitutional right in order to uphold lesser laws is setting an unfortunate legal precedent. Now, I'm no law student myself, I'm just going by what logic would dictate in any effectively nomic system such as ours. What, constitutionally, permits a lay person to circumvent a recognized constitutional protection for the purposes of maintaining federal law?
 
ismi said:
I'm poking around a bit, and found several references to interpreter/relay privilege, including in OK law: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=391834.

I've found other references in state and federal law, but that's the clearest.
Click to expand...

Ismi and Redailing, I am using quotes from what Ismi provided, since he was kind enough to provide a source for exactly what I was looking for. This is what it says is NOT covered as a privilege:

1. If the services of the interpreter were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the deaf or hard-of-hearing person knew, or reasonably should have known, to be a crime or fraud or physical injury to the deaf or hard-of-hearing person or another individual;

2. In which the deaf or hard-of-hearing person has expressed an intent to engage in conduct likely to result in imminent death or serious bodily injury to the deaf or hard-of-hearing person or another individual;

3. Relevant to an issue in a proceeding challenging the competency of the interpreter;

4. Relevant to a breach of duty by the interpreter; or

5. That are subject to a duty to disclose under statutory law.

An act of terrorism, murder, treason, theft, is not privileged information. Case closed.
 
Back
Top