4 ms·

Judge holds journalist in civil contempt for refusing to divulge source

49 points by woldemariam 3y ago

29athrowaway 3y ago
What is the law that requires divulging a source? How would that law be constitutional as per the first amendment?
- bombcar 3y ago
  It’s the fifth that mainly comes into play; you CAN be compelled to testify; just not against yourself (or close family, etc). (The case is weirder in that it’s basically a suit against the government that wants the info revealed, not the government. Obviously the judge wants someone higher than him to rule on it.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- pachunk 3y ago
  That would be 18 U.S. Code § 401 - Power of court (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
  - 29athrowaway 3y ago
    "Lawful" is the key here. What is lawful? first and foremost, a law that is constitutional (and that is not nullified by a jury).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nabla9 3y ago
Background information: Reporter's privilege in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege Internationally, United Nations, Council of Europe, and OSCE recognize journalists' right to protect their sources. The European Court of Human Rights has established source protection as essential component of freedom of expression in several cases.
- NikkiA 3y ago
  OTOH, FOX have argued in court before that they're an entertainment channel, not news, so should they get reporter's privilege‽
  - nabla9 3y ago
    That's incorrect. Fact Checking a Claim That Fox News Says Its Programming Is ‘Entertainment,’ Not News https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news/ https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-checking-a-claim-that-f... > While Fox’s lawyers may have successfully defended Carlson against an accusation of slander by arguing that his show isn’t “news,” Fox News has not claimed that this is true of all of its content.
gnabgib 3y ago
Bit of discussion 6 hours ago [0] (19points, 7 comments) - this is the same text, different syndication. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39573032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39573032
pests 3y ago
I'm a bit torn, it is complicated. A government employee potentially illegally doxxed someone by giving their personal information to a journalist. That someone wants to find out who it was using the only way they know how - asking the journalist who gave them the information. Sources usually deserve protection, but if they were breaking the law and causing harm... is it warranted? Not breaking the law like Snowden for the benefit of all, but to target a specific individual?
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  It's not worth charging/fining the reporter solely because of the distrust it will instill in all other confidential sources regardless of the facts surrounding this particular case. Nobody wants to consult a lawyer before talking to a reporter to see if that reporter might be held in contempt. So they simply won't talk to the reporter. The judge might win this one, but society on the whole will lose.
  - pests 3y ago
    So she must be the sacrifice? Where are these arguments for the betterment of society when all the NIMBYs pop up?

49 points by woldemariam 3y ago

29athrowaway 3y ago

What is the law that requires divulging a source? How would that law be constitutional as per the first amendment?

bombcar 3y ago
It’s the fifth that mainly comes into play; you CAN be compelled to testify; just not against yourself (or close family, etc). (The case is weirder in that it’s basically a suit against the government that wants the info revealed, not the government. Obviously the judge wants someone higher than him to rule on it.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pachunk 3y ago
That would be 18 U.S. Code § 401 - Power of court (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.
- 29athrowaway 3y ago
  "Lawful" is the key here. What is lawful? first and foremost, a law that is constitutional (and that is not nullified by a jury).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nabla9 3y ago

Background information: Reporter's privilege in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege Internationally, United Nations, Council of Europe, and OSCE recognize journalists' right to protect their sources. The European Court of Human Rights has established source protection as essential component of freedom of expression in several cases.

NikkiA 3y ago
OTOH, FOX have argued in court before that they're an entertainment channel, not news, so should they get reporter's privilege‽
- nabla9 3y ago
  That's incorrect. Fact Checking a Claim That Fox News Says Its Programming Is ‘Entertainment,’ Not News https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news/ https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-checking-a-claim-that-f... > While Fox’s lawyers may have successfully defended Carlson against an accusation of slander by arguing that his show isn’t “news,” Fox News has not claimed that this is true of all of its content.

gnabgib 3y ago

Bit of discussion 6 hours ago [0] (19points, 7 comments) - this is the same text, different syndication. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39573032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39573032

pests 3y ago

I'm a bit torn, it is complicated. A government employee potentially illegally doxxed someone by giving their personal information to a journalist. That someone wants to find out who it was using the only way they know how - asking the journalist who gave them the information. Sources usually deserve protection, but if they were breaking the law and causing harm... is it warranted? Not breaking the law like Snowden for the benefit of all, but to target a specific individual?

Workaccount2 3y ago
It's not worth charging/fining the reporter solely because of the distrust it will instill in all other confidential sources regardless of the facts surrounding this particular case. Nobody wants to consult a lawyer before talking to a reporter to see if that reporter might be held in contempt. So they simply won't talk to the reporter. The judge might win this one, but society on the whole will lose.
- pests 3y ago
  So she must be the sacrifice? Where are these arguments for the betterment of society when all the NIMBYs pop up?