A little technical confusion

Davon 2022-04-21 09:02:59

The heroine finally reached a plea agreement with the prosecutor, but it was only about admitting that she was guilty of "contempt of court", not the source of information.

The conflict between national interests such as national security and the right of speech and media coverage is indeed difficult to find that balance in a country with a complete system and a sound judiciary. Of course, you don't need to talk about this in other countries, it's really picking quarrels and provoking trouble!

The temperament of the heroine is really attractive, why didn't you notice it at Pearl Harbor.

View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews

Extended Reading
  • Sofia 2022-03-26 09:01:10

    Natural Born Killers is shocking enough. It is not a strange thing for cnn to be a thug. The story begins with a reporter stealing state secrets with a gossip mentality to win the Pulitzer, and the final confession is a kind of atonement. Since you're both right, it's the agent's own fault, and her daughter's even more so. Let’s be so entangled, anyway, without communism, there is no interest and human nature without tricks.

  • Kole 2022-03-26 09:01:10

    The truth of the last minute could not ignite the long foreshadowing of more than 100 minutes before, but it allowed me to once again witness the powerlessness of the law in the face of power. Ross's performance was quite satisfactory, which disappointed me a little.

Nothing But the Truth quotes

  • 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.