Court Fines Patch Editor $300 Per Day For Not Revealing Sources
from the chilling-effects dept
The war on journalism isn't coming from just the federal government. Over in Illinois, a judge has fined Joseph Hosey, an editor for the AOL-owned hyperlocal news site, Patch, $1,000 plus court costs, plus $300 per day for refusing to reveal his sources on a certain story. This is pretty important. Having a journalist reveal sources basically ends that reporter's career as a serious investigative reporter because no source will trust that their information will be secret again. By definition, having the government require someone to do so certainly seems like a First Amendment violation, as it's a clear restriction on the freedom of the press. In addition, while we're skeptical of journalism shield laws (and how they can be used to exclude journalists, rather than include them), Illinois does have a shield law. Thankfully, Patch is appealing this ruling.
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: joseph hosey, shield law, sources
Companies: aol, patch
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
This is MUCH more complex than a reporter being given gov't secrets. And if a defendant can plausibly show that the reporter has information that'll help clear him, then the reporter is morally obligated to produce it -- perhaps he could have done so anonymously and satisfied both concerns -- but if conscience isn't enough, then this bit of compelled is fine.
By the way, it's not ME who keeps going the wrong way on these marginal cases! It's YOU and your fanboy-trolls who are so INCREDIBLY idealistic that you don't see the practical flaws! But the slope is ALWAYS slippery, and far as I see, not really getting worse for this. The key is to pick a point on the slippery slope that you can maintain. -- For instance, YOUR casting a pirate site having its domain name taken away as some dire attack on free speech is just LOONY! That's NOT going to affect honest people, but an actual defendant in the teeth of the courts NOT being able to compel testimony may well land him in jail. So you're JUST PLAIN WRONG HERE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
Looks like that's what you did.
It was just the police reports. Not other incriminating (or otherwise) information unavailable to the authorities or defense team.
Just police reports that did not compromise the investigation or grand jury proceedings. So Patch informed the public without affecting the case. Sounds like decent journalism to me, thoroughly protected by the First Amendment.
And from there, you proceed to hop on your usual ranting hobby horse about things completely unrelated to this post. Dude, I generally read all comments, including yours, because -- usually -- comments add valuable elements to a basic post. But roughly 99.9999% of your comments turn out to be worse than useless, and I click the report button to save other people the trouble of scrolling past you.
I'm just going to skip the first part, and go straight to downchecking your bilge waste. If you want to rant about Masnick et al, why not get your own blog and do it there? That way, folks (if any) who want to read your timewasters, can go straight to the source, without wasting time here. And you'll have control of the comments so you won't have to whine that you're being censored.
You don't need to STFU; you just need to go buy your own soapbox... SOME. WHERE. ELSE. Please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
All I know is this Techdirt article clued me in to a story from right here in my neck of the woods that I didn't know the first thing about. Whatever was left out of the Techdirt summary (and after all, an aggregator can't include everything, was certainly included in the linked material.
So from where I sit, Techdirt did a fine job of journalism, just like the guy from Patch that the story is about.
Take it easy, friend. Life's too short for so much anger at someone who's doing a pretty fine job from where I sit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
"And from there, you proceed to hop on your usual ranting hobby horse about things completely unrelated to this post." -- but I don't click on report, 'cause your UN-self-aware frothing rage is fine with me when you are FLATLY WRONG in your assertions as I show above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
No, you have it wrong. OoTB is anti-Techdirt, not simply anti-sanity. If Techdirt published a story protesting kicking puppies, OoTB would run out and start kicking puppies.
But YOU are ON-TOPIC, right? Instead of simply responding to what you disparage? Not embiggening my effect at all, are you? -- OH, and by the way, you're just unable to answer my substance, that's all you reveal. You're not willing to state any positives, but you LOVE any excuse for ad hom.
You're the most UN-self-aware, arrogant bunch of lightweights I can imagine.
I'll repeat the deal I've attempted before: JUST SAY WHAT YOU WANT ON THE TOPIC, KIDS, AS I WILL. IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO SHEERLY SNARK BACK AT YOUR EMPTY AD HOM, THEN DON'T CLICK ON "REPLY".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
I realize you have trouble keeping up with the real world, but please refer to my original comment again. I said that that what Patch published was information from the police reports; I did not say that was what the current hearing was trying to learn, because that was the point of the post on the hearing and fines.
Try to keep up. The court (and defense) does not need the confidential source's name because nothing that Patch published affected the investigation and grand jury proceedings (adversely or otherwise), according to the article.
Again, try to keep up. You are the one who suggested that Patch had other information: "And if a defendant can plausibly show that the reporter has information that'll help clear him, then the reporter is morally obligated to produce it".
The patch reporter reported information already known to the police. Since the defense team obviously knows about this current proceeding, it seems obvious they know what Patch published (and should have gotten that through disclosure as well; if they didn't that is another issue unrelated to Patch). Nothing demonstrates knowledge of the crime above and beyond what the defense has. At most, they are on a fishing expedition, hoping to delay final conviction and sentencing. This case seems to be the very poster child for the state's shield law- there is no apparent reason that forcing revelation of the source's identity serves justice and the public interest.
But... congratulations. This is the longest you've stayed on topic since I noticed your bizarre rants on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Object lesson
OOTB's criticism and the subsequent discussion leave me way more informed about the core of the issue than if I'd just read the post. I might have thought I understood the issue after reading the post but I'd have been wrong.
Though the tone can sometimes be hysterical, personal, and (perhaps worst of all) off topic, were it not for these impassioned mini flames (which curiously, never seem to lead to Hitler references) it'd be far less informative an experience overall.
As a result I almost always click on "reported" posts because without them I can't put people's subsequent reactions to them into any kind of context.
Worringly, I may actually be making an argument for the continued existence of OOTB...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
You never respond to people when they pick apart your arguments as you are always proven wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YOU MORONS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
[ link to this | view in thread ]