Thank you for your question.
Basically, as for the exemption that is created when it comes to communicating information about protectees, or about people offering protection, or about methods used in protecting people, the exception that is created for protectees is very narrow. It covers only one type of information.
I'm saying this for a number of reasons. One is that for the criteria we use, the law currently says “knowingly”. Well, “knowingly” means one thing, but when it says they have “reason to believe” that it will cause “substantial harm”, that is not something that is readily understandable by witnesses, their families, and their relatives. Some of them, as was pointed out earlier, are children. That was one thing.
The other thing is that when we're talking about giving information directly or indirectly, imagine a 14-year-old who isn't a protectee under the program and who's involved in social networking and somehow divulges something that may be conceived to expose someone to harm, maybe his own parents. What would happen in those cases?
Well, common sense, hopefully, would be that nothing happens to that adolescent or that protectee, but if you interpret the law literally, it would seem that people and their families in those situations would always be in a very difficult position and under a lot of stress in terms of what it is that they can or cannot say. I know they will be supported. I know they will have information. I know they will even have psychological assistance. But it's a very difficult criteria for a layperson to understand. It might please people in courts, but in everyday life, protectees may not always understand what that means and what they're allowed to say and not allowed to say.