Court Says Reporters Can Be Compelled To Give Up Sources In Whistleblowing Cases
from the uh-oh dept
Right. Remember last week when the DOJ said that it was going to be a lot more careful about spying on journalists, or using them as a way to find their sources concerning government whistleblowing (or, in the DOJ's mind "evil leakers who are aiding the enemy")? Yeah, so a bit awkward on the timing here, as in the DOJ's fight against James Risen (the NY Times reporter that the DOJ has been trying to force to reveal his sources concerning earlier NSA leaks), an appeals court has now said that Risen can be compelled to testify and reveal his sources.The two judges (out of a three judge panel) who felt this way seriously twisted previous precedents concerning whether or not someone could be compelled to testify if you "witness" a crime. But the point of the laws there are basically if you see someone dealing drugs, you can be compelled to testify about it. With a reporter talking to a source, where that source is blowing the whistle on the government, then yes, the whistleblower may be technically "breaking the law" in providing info to a journalist, but it's an entirely different situation than say a journalist reporting on drug dealers (the precedent case that the court relied on). But, the court ruled otherwise.
There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source.It is difficult to overstate the chilling impact this particular ruling will have on investigative journalism, especially when it comes to reporting on government abuse and corruption. Even if a journalist promises confidentiality and completely means it, this ruling means the government can just drag that journalist to court and force him or her to reveal his or her sources. That's going to completely freak out whistleblowers. While the court disagrees, I have a hard time seeing how this does not, fundamentally, violate the First Amendment's protections for press freedom.
Given that, I agree with Judge Gregory, who wrote a strong dissent.
Today we consider the importance of a free press in ensuring the informed public debate critical to citizens’ oversight of their democratically elected representatives. Undoubtedly, the revelation of some government secrets is too damaging to our country’s national security to warrant protection by evidentiary privilege. Yet the trial by press of secret government actions can expose misguided policies, poor planning, and worse. More importantly, a free and vigorous press is an indispensable part of a system of democratic government. Our country’s Founders established the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press as a recognition that a government unaccountable to public discourse renders that essential element of democracy – the vote – meaningless. The majority reads narrowly the law governing the protection of a reporter from revealing his sources, a decision that is, in my view, contrary to the will and wisdom of our Founders.The dissent is really worth reading, going into great detail on how this ruling appears to contradict previous rulings protecting the right of journalists to keep sources confidential.
In the past, Risen himself has said that he will appeal such a ruling and, further, that he would go to jail before revealing his sources. Either way, yet again, we see the Obama administration's all-too-aggressive war against whistleblowers and the impact it has. Various national security reporters have already been talking about how sources have been clamming up lately, and this is only going to lead to more of that -- and much less oversight and reporting on government fraud, abuse and corruption.
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: 4th circuit, doj, first amendment, investigative journalism, james risen, journalism, leaks, press, sources, whistleblowing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So we are now truly a police controlled state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So we are now truly a police controlled state.
garbage in, garbage out..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So we are now truly a police controlled state.
Their ideal world is a place where everything they do is ok and no one shall ever challenge them on why they did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note to William Shakespeare
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, the end effect is silencing of journalist's sources, or at least forcing them to act anonymously.
Thats quite a ideological statement from the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm, you unwittingly adopt a distinction for "journalist"...
Now, as matter of law, the ruling is correct that anyone can be compelled to testify, but I'd rarely support it. Here, DOJ is pretty clearly fishing for basic identity, not confirming a solid case. So unless were some absolutely compelling special circumstances, I'd stick with the established privilege, 'cause no citizen should be forced to inform on others to gov't.
For now, we can still hope that the Supreme Court won't trash another right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm, you unwittingly adopt a distinction for "journalist"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm, you unwittingly adopt a distinction for "journalist"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the 5th Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the 5th Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the 5th Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice job, big government. You've just made it even more impossible to try and reveal the identities of these "sources".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sincerely
US government
freedom and liberty for all ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But somehow reporters think they are special.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"reporters think they are special"
Interesting that government folk think the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dead Drop
Instead of DropBox - Dead Drop the Govt's dirt-bag criminal activity for reporters to find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Checks and imbalances
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's now silence
I wondered why. Now I know-it's a crime to keep sources secret and that if one does so, you can go to jail for it.
No wonder nobody wants to report any news. It's a criminal act to report the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's now silence
The real reason why is because the mainstream press in the US is totally owned and operated by huge corporations that run the business as if it were a high-profit entertainment venture, and can (and do) dictate what stories should be covered and what stories shouldn't, according to their business needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill of Rights vs. Natural rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I think that it is a natural right to keep secrets on whom you associate with, or what you see. There is a substantial difference between covering up wrongdoing and simply not talking about it. We rightfully condemn people for doing the former, in that they have actively prevented others from discovering the truth, but we have no right to condemn others for doing the latter, which involves no deceit at all.
Frankly, I don't like seeing anyone being compelled to testify under any circumstances, reporter or not. If our laws do not protect people from such compulsion, our laws are inadequate, or outright unjust.
Also, I find it telling that that compulsory testification has been used to enforce drug laws (which are themselves unjust) and to root out whistleblowers (who are revealing truths that the government wishes to keep secret).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]