Today after returning from dinner I turned on my television and decided to watch a movie I had never even heard of. It was called "The Insider". The film was released in 1999 and is about a chemist working for Big Tobacco. It is based on a true story of Brown and Williamson whistle blower Jeffrey Wigand. From 1989-1993, Wigand served as the Vice President of Research and Development there. He is approached by a Producer of 60 minutes who asks him for his expert opinion on files that came into his possession about cigarettes and how they burn. At first, Dr. Wigand is hesitant to talk as he has a confidentiality clause in his severance contract. The movie goes on and 60 Minutes finding the story controversial and with intense fear of lawsuit decide not to show an interview between Dr. Wigand and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. They later decide to after reports surrounding the case are published by both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.
Now here come my questions:
Do you think that in a case like this that free speech should be infringed upon based on a contractual agreement if information being withheld is for the general welfare of the public?
Do you think CBS was right to withhold this story based on fear of lawsuit?
Where is the line that determines when speech should or shouldn't be protected by law?
