Journalism Student Protected By California Shield Law
from the journalism-in-action dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about a journalism student who witnessed a murder while doing a photojournalism project. While police were trying to get information from him, he invoked California's shield law for journalists, allowing them to protect "sources." The case is complex on a number of different levels -- from the fact that the kid is a student, not a full-time journalist, to the fact that the information on the murder wasn't directly a source from whom he was learning info, but something he just witnessed. The other complicating factor is the idea that the student could put his life in danger by revealing what he saw. Either way, a judge has ruled that, indeed, California's shield law protects this student and he does not need to reveal what he saw. The police are not happy, and referred to the student as a "coward," which seems a bit harsh.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, journalism, shield law, student
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let me guess, it was probably some donut munching desk jockey wearing a suit of kevlar, toting a couple sidearms, and driving home in a black and white with bullet proof glass for a windshield. Yeah, the unarmed college kid who witnessed the murder you, the athorities, couldn't keep from happening, HE'S the coward...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Spend some time in a country like Mexico and interact with law enforcement there and you'll realize how good we have it here. I don't have some blind eyes of the failings of our LEAs, but I do have some sense of the difficult job they have to do on a daily basis.
Spend a week or so where every person you speak to generally lies, obfuscates, or makes your job difficult and you'd get frustrated like them pretty quick.
I know you're frustrated, but you know saying "you, the authorities, couldn't keep from happening," makes no sense. No "authority" can prevent a murder from occurring unless they are present for the action--threat of prosecution or capture is the only deterrent and even in the face of certain arrest people still kill other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm glad you realize that, because a great many of them don't. Many seem to think, and act like, they are better than "the rest of us".
...doing a job very few of us would do.
Actually, most agencies have people line up practically begging to get in. It helps to know someone.
It seems to me that it is becoming culturally acceptable to denigrate officers and the profession in general. I find this sickening.
I've noticed just the opposite. It seems to be politically incorrect to criticize cops in any way. If someone does, they are usually sure to be attacked for it by politically-correct hero worshipers. I find *that* sickening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Glad you generally enjoy, but extrapolating my commentary on what is clearly an idiotic statement by some upper level "policeman" into some kind of carte blanche attack on everyone who serves in law enforcement is a fairly clear strawman. This is a police dept. that failed to keep one murder from happening, and is now calling a witness a coward for being fearful that they'd let him be murdered as well if he stepped forward. If I was an airline pilot who crashed my last plane into a mountain, do I get to call people cowards if they don't want to fly my next plane?
"Spend some time in a country like Mexico and interact with law enforcement there and you'll realize how good we have it here. I don't have some blind eyes of the failings of our LEAs, but I do have some sense of the difficult job they have to do on a daily basis."
The difficult job that SOME of them do. SOME of them. Most don't. I have friends in law enforcement. Their stories make me very, very angry. They think they're funny. They are not.
"Spend a week or so where every person you speak to generally lies, obfuscates, or makes your job difficult and you'd get frustrated like them pretty quick."
Well, it seems perfectly reasonable then to respond to a WITNESS by calling him a coward? What am I missing here?
I know you're frustrated, but you know saying "you, the authorities, couldn't keep from happening," makes no sense. No "authority" can prevent a murder from occurring unless they are present for the action--threat of prosecution or capture is the only deterrent and even in the face of certain arrest people still kill other people."
That's fine. But if you can't prevent murders, then you don't get to call witnesses cowards when they're afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, I will grant you that I did extrapolate your argument further than it seems you intended. I apologize, that extrapolation seems to be the general tone of the responses to this overall topic and I unfairly applied it to you.
As for the rest of your response--since we're debating matters of opinion and perception we'll just have to move on. You same SOME, I say MOST. I think that people unfairly generalize behaviors of individuals to the entire group. There are a lot of psychological reasons for this (selection bias, remembering the negative, etc) plus everyone likes there to be laws, but no one likes it when they restrict our desired behaviors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch out for Fake DUI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought he was a journalism student... Wouldn't this make a good story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sickening
Someone was MURDERED and he stood there, watched, reported on it, and then refused to allow justice to punish those that did it.
Sorry, this out weighs any so-called "journalistic integrity". We're not talking about a "deep throat" or a whistle blower, we are talking about witnessing a murder of another human being.
This kid is more than a coward. He has no soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sickening
Jerk = most likely YES for the reasons you expressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sickening
This is a dangerous road to go down-lauding those that fight against law enforcement. Perhaps we should all just do whatever we want and disband the police force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sickening
So you're one of those who would like to repeal the shield laws?
lauding those that fight against law enforcement.
First of all, he's not generally being lauded. In fact, he's been subjected to quite a bit of scorn and name calling from the likes of the police and yourself.
Second, he's not "fighting against law enforcement." That would require him to be taking affirmative actions against them (the police), which he isn't. He just hasn't *helped* them out with his testimony. So why tell such lies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sparky's right
Karma will ensure that the student gets the same compassion next time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said I have no idea what I would do if I were in his shoes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All these people commenting, so easily calling him a coward, I highly doubt they'd have the balls to do the right thing if it were -their- lives on the line. (And who would expect any more/less from people calling people names from the anonymity of their homes)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But seriously, you can't reasonably demand the kid to be a hero. If you would do it, that's perfectly ok... but asking another person to risk his life because you would is kind of weird.
What troubles me most about this is that the kid got special protection because he's a journalism student (if that's the case). Making differences because of background or education is plane wrong. Since the source was him (apparently), I think that's stretching the law because of this particular case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It isn't "because of background or education". It's because of role. And we do that all the time. Lawyers are allowed to represent people in legal matters that others are not. Doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs that others are not. Cops are allowed to possess weapons and use force that others are not. And so on and so forth. Society makes such distinctions all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's funny how on one hand police doesn't want their pictures taken, especially for undercover agents, as it would endanger their lives and yet call someone who doesn't get a annual automatic paycheck increase of 10% (and other perks) for their risk job a coward when they want to protect themselves.
Keep in mind that the kid was likely no ordinary "anonymous" witness, but because of the project he was doing probably a very known face in the neighborhood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
As for the case, perhaps a good call perhaps not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sneeje
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sneeje
However, I was only dealing in this instance relayed in the article. It's simple: I don't care how many "scumbags" you have to deal with on a daily basis, because none of that should translate into a witness being called a coward for not coming forward. Look, it's a simple equation:
A. Murders happen, committed by bad people
B. Police want you to testify against one of these PROVEN murderers (proven to the witness, since they witnessed it)
C. You tell the police to go fuck themselves, since it's fairly obvious they can't keep murders from happening in the neighborhood, and this proven murderer would especially want to get you
How is that not reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sneeje
The argument for sites like these is generally, "someone has to keep the authorities in check" which is an important goal, except for the way in which it is usually executed--full of glee, anarchism, and schadenfreude. I don't find that particularly noble. If these sites focused on helping improve the situation rather than simply pointing out failures I might read them more often.
As for DH, I understand and agree with your points, but it seems to me that if you take the "C" route, you're now in a never ending cycle of violence. At some point, someone has to stand up and make it stop--and assuming it will be the authorities just keeps you in the role of victim. I realize, however, that this is a wonderful theory that in practice may be extremely difficult (thus the issue with the journalists decision).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sneeje
Unlike yourself, eh?
the way in which it is usually executed--full of glee, anarchism, and schadenfreude. I don't find that particularly noble.
In your opinion. But then, what else could be expected from a fascist point of view?
If these sites focused on helping improve the situation rather than simply pointing out failures I might read them more often.
Pointing out problems is about the limit of journalism. Journalist aren't supposed to take things into their own hands with direct action to supposedly "improve the situation". That's the kind of thing fascists, terrorists and others of their ilk are known for and it has no place in democracy. You're scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sneeje
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are putting forth a rational argument, but I think you might be throwing around the word "fascist" a bit too loosely. By your definition, anyone that disagrees with you or has issues with nonconstructive criticism is a fascist. That's like calling someone that thinks Michael Jackson was a pedophile, a racist.
"Pointing out problems is about the limit of journalism". Sorry, your argument is a rationalization, not a valid point. Otherwise, journalistic publications ought to remove their editorial pages and blogs aren't journalism. It is possible to point out problems in a constructive way--there are many journalists that do so. This is very hard and requires significant talent and intelligence. Anyone can criticize. I'm just suggesting that those who just criticize often do so out of an ugly, self-inflating reason, rather than the collective benefit that they claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sneeje
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If any non-journalism student had witnessed the same thing, we'd have nothing to hide behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All you need to do is write a blog or something, and you can claim you are a journalist for everything. No more talking to the cops, because, well, you are a journalist.
Yeah right. This one will certainly be appealed, it's a BS decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
refusing to help bring justice is cowardice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sickening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]