Federal Shield Law, Bloggers and

Keyword(s):  
2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-294
Author(s):  
Stuart Wallace

This paper analyses the legal protection of the journalist–source relationship from both sides and the underlying interests involved. The paper begins by analysing why the relationship deserves protection. The position of journalists at common law is analysed with a discussion of the application of the principle established in Norwich Pharmacal v Customs and Excise to journalists. The development of immunity from contempt in s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is examined to illustrate the ideological clash between the judiciary and journalists. The impact of the Human Rights Act and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are analysed to assess whether this will lead to a change in attitudes in the UK. Finally, the potential threat to journalists posed by compelled evidentiary disclosure in criminal cases is reviewed, with a particular look at ‘special procedure’ material. The US section begins with an analysis of the law at federal level, the decisions of the Supreme Court, including the leading decision of Branzburg v Hayes, as well as the role the legislature has played. The paper then analyses protections provided at state level, with a case study of the California shield law and a review of Californian jurisprudence.


Author(s):  
Ted Palys ◽  
John Lowman

RésuméLa protection de la confidentialité des recherches est un principe intégral de toutes les sciences sociales, ainsi que des codes d'éthique de l'humanité. Mais que se passerait-il si une juridiction exigerait l'accès à des informations confidentielles sur des recherches, tant dans le cas de litiges au civil, que pour des affaires criminelles? Au Canada, seules les informations provenant des recherches de Statistiques Canada jouissent de ce privilège relatif à la preuve—une juridiction ne peut exiger une divulgation. Tous les autres chercheurs devront faire appel à la common law afin de protéger des recherches confidentielles. Il leur appartiendrait, pour chaque cas, d'apporter la preuve de la nécessité de garder confidentielle toute information sur ces recherches, avec le risque malheureux qu'une juridiction ordonne leur divulgation. Cet article décrit cinq problèmes découlant de l'état du droit. Les protections juridiques de la confidentialité de la recherche ont encore beaucoup de chemin à parcourir avant de résoudre ces problèmes. Mais comment se présenteront ces protections? Qui aura à les gérer? La deuxième partie de cet article examine les protections législatives des privilèges relatifs à la preuve, y compris la Loi sur les statistiques, et la Loi canadienne sur la preuve, ainsi que les «certificats de confidentialité» (pour certains types de recherches en santé) et les «certificats de vie privée» (pour certaines enquêtes criminelles) des États-Unis, en vue d'établir des critères permettant l'établissement d'une loi protégeant la recherche canadienne.


Author(s):  
Judith Miller

The Pentagon Papers case leaves open the question of whether journalists can be compelled to disclose the identities of those who reveal classified information to them. This essay considers some of the most enduring arguments for and against a federal shield law. Those who argue against such a law note definitional problems and contend that we must punish leaks given their impact on national security. They argue that institutionalizing the press actually harms the press and that the shield law is unnecessary given current use of technology to identify sources of leaks. Those in favor counter that definitional questions should not be a problem because almost all states have been able to resolve the questions in their laws. Moreover, most leaks do not compromise national security; government secrecy, deceit, and incompetence cause more damage to national security than the press’s reporting of secret information; and without a federal shield law, sources will not provide important information about government misconduct.


Author(s):  
Patrice Holderbach

In May of 2007, the U.S. Congress introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, reigniting the legislative push toward a federal shield law. Though the journalism industry has widely embraced prospects for the law, such legislation would likely create a tiered system of protection among First Amendment practitioners. Back in 2005, during an undergraduate internship as a beat reporter for The Kansas City Star, I recall receiving a mass e-mail from a senior editor. The memo encouraged all employees of the paper, which is read daily by about 700,000 people, to contribute to a legal defence fund dedicated toward the creation of a federal shield law. Without probing the pros and cons of what such legislation would mean not only to the newspaper establishment, but also to society in general, the message challenged fellow employees to meet or surpass the editor’s $100 contribution. That message troubled me, and it should trouble us all. Last year, the U.S. Congress considered two versions of a bill to create a federal shield law protecting journalists from being subpoenaed and potentially jailed for refusal to disclose anonymous sources. Congressmen marked the move toward reintroducing the legislation in 2007 by cajoling hundreds of delegates at the American Society of Newspaper Editors conference to 'use their pages in support of the upcoming federal shield law bill' (Strupp 2007). Indeed, such commentary has recently been published by The New York Times (2007), among numerous other outlets. And in early May of 2007, the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, reigniting the legislative push toward a federal shield law. This paper avoids analysing that specific proposal, as this occasion marks not the first time Congress has considered this topic and likely not the last. Rather, the thrust examines conceptual implications derivable from a federal shield law, implications not ordinarily discussed by the news media industry. Frighteningly, such legislation would likely create a tiered system of protection among First Amendment practitioners  an urgent warning explained throughout this paper.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document