4 ms·
Hmm I don't know, some protection exists per NY law according to the article. On one hand it doesn't sound like FC waited for the report to be authenticated, on
by notsuoh 6y ago
Hmm I don't know, some protection exists per NY law according to the article. On one hand it doesn't sound like FC waited for the report to be authenticated, on the other hand who knows if London Police would ever do that, I don't know. I think it's fair to have the protection of this law or legal framework if a reporter has a reasonable belief that what they're reporting is accurate. But maybe it's a strict liability sort of deal, where it doesn't matter what the reporter believed but rather a factual question of whether the reporter published things that ended up being untrue, regardless of belief.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago> Hmm I don't know, some protection exists per NY law according to the article. Apparently not enough protection given that the judge has given an order for the source to be revealed. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.525673/gov.uscourts.nysd.525673.99.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.525673... Apparently the standard here for piercing reporter's privilege is pretty simple: “The qualified [reporter’s] privilege can be overcome only upon a clear and specific showing by the party seeking disclosure that the information is: (1) highly material and relevant to its action; (2) necessary or critical to the claim; and (3) not obtainable from other sources.” My takeaway from this is that if you think it's likely that a statement you are making to a reporter will be the central subject of a legal action (e.g. if you want to slander someone to a reporter), it is not a safe move. Of course, this doesn't mean that the investor will prevail overall. But it does seem like the confidential source will have to defend the truthfulness of the material they provided in court. IMO, this is not an entirely unreasonable outcome.