Adhering to the principle is actually the result of comprehensive consideration

Birdie 2022-04-23 07:03:33

It must be admitted that audiences who have never studied law, or have little understanding of the Anglo-American legal system, actually have a certain difficulty in really understanding this movie.
This film can be used in class for students in the second year and above of undergraduate law, such as teaching media and legal relations.
At the end, the informant is finally exposed, huh, at least, I didn't expect it, it's a classic. But the inference goes back, the heroine insists not to speak the informant, not simply insisting on the so-called under the framework of freedom of the press, as a reporter's commitment to the informant, but from the great motherhood, from the heart of compassion, from the heart The deep guilt stems from the promise of Lagogou.

In fact, most of the time, ordinary people lose hard against the state's violent machine. Even if the female pig's horn is like that, the newspaper has hired the best lawyers to defend her. If the general public can hire an unknown lawyer or have no money to hire a lawyer at all, then forget it. In a society ruled by law, the level of lawyers is basically proportional to the outcome of a trial.

View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews

Extended Reading
  • Eduardo 2022-03-27 09:01:14

    admire those who stick to principles and choose to do the right thing even it's a lot harder.

  • Patsy 2022-03-16 09:01:05

    "With the passage of time, the power in the hands of the government has penetrated into every corner. These people in power, regardless of party or affiliation, only want to make themselves immortal, and the people are the ultimate victims." Excellent, everything is good. But I think there is a surprise at the end, but it is not amazing. There is room for discussion, and the soul of the movie is lost in half. After reading it, I deeply feel that power is a luxury.

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.