Court Won't Rehear Reporter James Risen's Appeal On Being Compelled To Testify About Sources
from the on-to-the-supreme-court dept
In July, we wrote about a worrisome ruling by an appeals court, that said that NYTimes reporter James Risen could be compelled to give up his sources by putting him on the witness stand in a whistleblower case. Risen is, quite reasonably, arguing that Constitutional protections for a free press should prevent him from having to reveal sources. The appeals court panel had ruled two-to-one against Risen and in favor of the government. Risen asked the entire appeals court to rehear the appeal (a so-called "en banc" rehearing), but the Fourth Circuit appeals court has rejected the request by an overwhelming majority: 13-to-1. The one vote in favor of rehearing the appeal was, not surprisingly, the sole judge who sided with Risen in the original ruling, Roger Gregory. The case isn't over yet, as Risen will almost certainly ask the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. And, given the subject area, one hopes that the Supreme Court will agree to take the case. But, for now, we're left in a world where the government continues to have way too much power over a supposedly free press in their ongoing war against whistleblowers.
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: appeals court, first amendment, free press, james risen, journalists, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We Can't Depend on the Supreme Court
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: We Can't Depend on the Supreme Court
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: We Can't Depend on the Supreme Court
Ridiculously easy these days to spot someone who is not a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So just calling someone a whistleblower does not make the person you call one !
Snowden and manning are not whistleblowers as defined by the well established US laws on whistleblowers.
They might be something else, but whistleblowers they are not.
And being a journalist does not exempt you from the laws, I hope he does get heard by the supreme court, they will decide the same as the lower courts.
Journalists are not above the law, thankfully.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh deal, cant handle the arguments again Mr Masnick ??
OK, if you have to revert to censorship to stifle free speech, you have to defend yourself somehow..
If you cant do it through open debate and argument, then do it through censorship..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh deal, cant handle the arguments again Mr Masnick ??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"It wasn't Joe Blow that killed Senator So-and-so, your Honor... it was AMERICA that killed Senator So-and-so">
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh deal, cant handle the arguments again Mr Masnick ??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2013 @ 7:45pm
As for the First Amendment, you're viewpoint is your own and, thankfully, not shared by many others. Risen is a thoughtful and mostly responsible professional. His work has been recognised and respected.
Reread the Bill of Rights someday when you're able and think about the role of a free press which was so respected by the authours that they took pains to specifically enumerate its role in our society--a role for which Yi out seem to have no appreciation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2013 @ 7:45pm
As for the First Amendment, you're viewpoint is your own and, thankfully, not shared by many others. Risen is a thoughtful and mostly responsible professional. His work has been recognised and respected.
Reread the Bill of Rights someday when you're able and think about the role of a free press which was so respected by the authours that they took pains to specifically enumerate its role in our society--a role for which you seem to have no appreciation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2013 @ 7:45pm
Even Snowden doesn't really past the test, because he again data dumped an agency hoping people would find specific things. Rather than being outraged by a single case, he just disliked his job and what he felt they were doing, so he dumped it all and hoped it would get some people.
While the end result appears to be whistling blowing, both cases have significant and untold implications beyond the scope of what would fall under whistleblowing. As an example, Snowdon's little data dump made it so that pretty much every country on the planet can claim the US is snooping on them, and use that as leverage against the US in any negotiation or political situation - even if it's not true or not of any real scope.
Data dumping is not whistleblowing - whistleblowing tries to right a specific wrong, data dumping is done to piss people off.
As for the reporter, when you actually witness a crime or worse participate in it, even in passing, then you are no longer protected by privilege. There is a line, and he appears to have crossed it. Just like many anti-piracy cases, if you get the wrong or a poor defendant - or if they are trying to defend a bad point - they can set caselaw for everyone else. Journalist groups would be wise to come down on this guy and tell him to just eat it... taking this to the supreme court would be a slam dunk loss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I couldn't care less what the law defines as a "whistleblower", especially since those laws were specifically written to ensure that as little actual whistleblowing as possible is covered by them.
These guys are whistleblowers by any practical definition I can think of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]