Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Have No Right To Hide Sources
from the freedom-of-the-press dept
While we're still fighting for a federal press shield law in the US (various states have them, but it's not universal), the Supreme Court in Canada has ruled that a journalist could be compelled to give up his or her sources if the court thinks it's worthwhile. The court did say that it really does depend on the circumstances, but if a court decides that it's of greater public interest to reveal the source, then the court can require it. Of course, there could be some serious unintended consequences that come with such a ruling -- including making sources and whistleblowers less willing to come forward, knowing that the journalists they speak to may not be able to protect their anonymity. I don't know how the Canadian political setup works, but couldn't this issue be solved with Canada passing a shield law? Hell, they can talk to their counterparts down south who are working on the same thing...
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: canada, press, shield law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, at least in the U.S. the courts seem to almost always decide that it's in the greater public interest to grant warrants and they almost never turn down a warrant.
I don't think a court is really capable of making these decisions, I think that we should increase the consensus factor required to either grant a warrant or break journalistic anonymity. Have a jury of like 12 people decide and require at least a 3/4 majority in agreement of either granting a warrant or revealing a journalists sources. Or, if a 3/4 majority isn't sufficient, require a unanimous 12/12 majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like how they're talking to their counterparts down south about intellectual property law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In Canada:
Downloading is ok.
Uploading could be infringement, depending on the file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the old way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epic freedom of press fail.
It's called democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Epic freedom of press fail.
Of course that's not true, and the public is probably much better off in Sweden because of the laws that you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Epic freedom of press fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public good? Perhaps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, they can talk to their counterparts down south who are working on the same thing...
There has been quite enough "talking to our counterparts down south" and not enough "listening to our citizens." We are a sovereign country and can make our own laws. Thank you very much. I think the bigger issue here is courts trying to make laws, an area which by definition is out of their jurisdiction. Just another "lets follow the americans" attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have =
I have
---
He/She/It has
We have
You have
They have
Thus it should be:
Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Has No Right To Hide Sources
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canadian sheild law unlikely
It should be noted that the Supreme Count was very careful in its ruling to point out that these things are to be decided on a case by case basis and that there was a powerful dissenting opinion which leaves it open for changes later on.
As has been noted the Court has to take the "public interest" into account in these rulings and the fact that the document in question is alleged to be a forgery is likely what tipped the scales.
Constitutionally is the requirement that the Court do nothing that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute which a blanket ruling in either direction would likely have done.
While we can learn from our neighbours to the south, and I say that without the knee jerk response of some of my "nationalist" compatriots who have the same reaction to every suggestion that we can do that, in this case we have to recognize the different constitutional settings in which the courts and lawmakers attempt to deal with the status of sources for journalists.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]