European Court Of Human Rights Says Press Can Protect Anonymous Sources

from the common-sense dept

Thu, Dec 17th 2009 9:09pm — Mike Masnick

While here in the US, we're still fighting over a federal shield law that will let journalists protect their sources, Michael Scott points us to the news that the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that the media can protect anonymous sources.

The Court reiterates that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that, in that context, the safeguards guaranteed to the press are particularly important. Furthermore, protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result, the vital "public watchdog" role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable reporting may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect that an order for disclosure of a source has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with Article 10 unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.

This is definitely a good thing, and a bit surprising, since Europe has, in the past, often been a bit less protective of the right to speak anonymously.

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: anonymity, europe, human rights, journalism, sources

8 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Kevin, 17 Dec 2009 @ 10:57pm

No 4th Branch
Over here in the U.S. the press isn't a "public watchdog" with any special powers or exemptions or role in government. The closest thing is the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. Certainly, the press is free to speak; there is no right to anonymity.

Does this Article 10 for the EU give the press some sort of a role? I'm unfamiliar with EU laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2009 @ 10:58pm

Wholly apart from the above issue, the concept that an unregulated tribunal can try and exercise jurisdiction displacing national sovereignty and national law should indeed be worrisome.

On a brighter note, the court has recognized under its "human rights" jurisprudence that Article 1 of the governing Convention directed to property does extend to intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2009 @ 11:06pm

Re:
"On a brighter note, the court has recognized under its "human rights" jurisprudence that Article 1 of the governing Convention directed to property does extend to intellectual property."

That's not a bright note, that's a dark note. Intellectual property does not help most individuals as much as it hurts them, it only helps rich and powerful corporations and more specifically the rich and the powerful at public expense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luci, 17 Dec 2009 @ 11:42pm

Re: No 4th Branch
Over here in the US, the press IS a public watchdog, and they most certainly do (in most states) have a right to protect their sources. You're wrong about that right to anonymity, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
., 18 Dec 2009 @ 1:57am

Courts in the U.S.
Have upheld anonynimity as a right for a long time now.

Besides the constitution also say that even without a law the public still have rights that are not in the constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enrico Suarve, 18 Dec 2009 @ 2:49am

In other news...
The British government responded to the ruling by stating "Ha ha, we no longer get this information direct from the press anyway, we will just continue to intercept and monitor any emails, phone calls or mail going to the press and investigate any member of the public going into or driving near press buildings."

Happy non-denominational seasonal festival, and to all of you comrades wasting papaer wrapping your presents please remember if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, so why hide the pressies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anne, 18 Feb 2010 @ 12:09pm

This is definitely a good thing, and a bit surprising, since Europe has, Enzyte in the past, often been a bit less protective of the right to speak anonymously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rk, 14 Feb 2013 @ 12:44pm

In theory its goods but in practice the press are not "watchdogs" and will report any thing to get ratings, including details of an ex minister child having cystic fibrosis, wrongly accusing people of pedophilia which ruins there life, phone hacking, etc .
In theory, I could say any one, including the reader of this, is a rapist and say my source wants to remain anonymous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]