Let's say I publish the identity of an undercover agent, who inflirtrates a band of murderers trying to get evidence of a muder they committed. I do this in order to hurt the agent because I am jelaous of his success. The next day the band of murderers kill the undercover agent. Am I responsible for the murder?
On one hand I knew that by publishing the identity of the agent, he will most likely be killed, which makes my action akin to that of a man who hired a hitman. On the other hand, I just published some information, so it is supposed to be free speech.
What do you think?
Is your speech responsible for other people's actions?
Direct threats or incitation to threat are immoral.
However, as to the original question, there is no threat. It should be legal. You shouldn't do it, but it's still allowable. People may shun you forever, but you stand within your rights.
Maybe the injured party could claim against the whistleblower if they had a non-disclosure agreement.
Otherwise I agree with Wheylous. There's no natural obligation to keep secrets.
How is that different from paying a hitman? In both cases you had the intent for a specific person to be killed, and you acted to make it happen. You knew in both cases that your action will very likely lead to his death.
Eugene: Let's say I publish the identity of an undercover agent, who inflirtrates a band of murderers trying to get evidence of a muder they committed. I do this in order to hurt the agent because I am jelaous of his success. The next day the band of murderers kill the undercover agent. Am I responsible for the murder? On one hand I knew that by publishing the identity of the agent, he will most likely be killed, which makes my action akin to that of a man who hired a hitman. On the other hand, I just published some information, so it is supposed to be free speech. What do you think?
Speech is still an act, an act that resulted in someone being murdered. If he's responsible in whole or in part, it would be for the result of his act, not the speech itself.
We say free speech, we mean free from government censorship; we don't mean that it shall always have no consequences.
For instance, one can always be prosecuted for lying under oath, which is a situation where you are warranting that you are telling the truth under pain of prosecution. You are not free to lie in that case. But, in this case, the newspaper would not be prevented from selling (that would be in violation of free speech as government censorship), but the journo can still face criminal repurcussions for inciting to violence and perhaps manslaughter.
I liken this situation to that of doctors, whose maxim 'do no harm' is an ethic the profession lives by, and doing active harm is a prosecutable action (malpractice, negligence, etc.).
Similarly with journalism, the doctrine of 'do no harm' should come into play. Publishing the guy's name knowing that he would likely face repucussions even unto death put you into the category of a criminal contribution to his murder.
We know that the journo must be in part responsible for the man's death if we simply ask would the man have been killed without the journo's revealing his identity. Clealry not in this case. Intent would come into play during any resulting trial, and here we've got criminal intent. Probably the journo in this case could be slapped with a manslaughter charge, conspiracy to murder, or perhaps even 2nd degree murder charge, just like someone hiring a hitman like in your example. That's actually a very good countercase.
I'd put this in the category of contributory negligence if murder were an accident :P Here you have contributory murder. However it rises above the level of manslaughter because there is in this case intent to kill. It's closer to conspiracy, yet this would be an implicit conspiracy rather than an explicit one; one where no discussions took place between the journo and the killer, yet the journo knew what the killers would do if given certain information.
Long story short, I'd say he's criminally liable in some form.