-
Amos 2022-04-22 07:01:42
just say a few words
The movie doesn't seem to get much attention.
Under normal circumstances, it is not easy to nibble on movies with political themes, especially those involving a lot of court scenes. But this movie made me watch it with great cheer, and gradually applauded as the plot progressed.
The protagonist's... -
Corene 2022-03-23 09:02:44
a bad review
I was already asleep, but I got up and turned on the computer, wanting to say something.
I watched this film on and off, and the first half was nothing spectacular. The plot was basically the same as what I thought, and the suspense only seemed to be on which informant. If it goes on like this,...
Robert P. Campbell
-
Maeve 2022-04-24 07:01:17
How can such a source come out...if I start to think that Rachel is the party of objective justice and this ending makes me tangled...
-
Jamison 2022-04-24 07:01:17
Two women, one was questioned by the boss in the cemetery, the other endured torment in the prison... The old lawyer said that one does charity, is respected, and lives well, but the number of people who can finally attend his funeral depends on the weather
-
Ray Armstrong: [staring at his wife's new story] You made the top page!
-
Alan Burnside: [In front of the Supreme Court] In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes this Court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the Government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a 5-4 decision, close. In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, power of Government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Mrs. Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the Government; she could've abandoned her promise of confidentiality; she could've simply gone home to her family. But to do so, would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again. And then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a President has covered up crimes or if an army officer has condoned torture? We as a nation will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of Government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shudder at the thought. Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries; that's for countries who fear their citizens - not countries that cherish and protect them. Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.
