Posted on 04/24/2013 12:39:43 PM PDT by IndePundit
A Colorado judge's threatened contempt sanctions against Fox News investigative reporter Jana Winter—who refuses to reveal a confidential news source—has refocused public attention on how journalists operate.
News must often be gathered from confidential sources, or not at all. Given how vital is the freedom of the press in a democracy, that confidentiality must be maintained. It is time that Congress recognize this and enact legislation that enables journalists to protect their confidential sources and newsgathering materials.
Ms. Winter covered the July 20, 2012 mass shooting that killed 12 people and injured 58 others in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater. Based on confidential law-enforcement sources, she reported that James E. Holmes, who is charged with the murders, had previously sent a notebook to his psychiatrist describing his intent to kill.
Now that Mr. Holmes is facing trial, his defense attorneys want to know the identities of Ms. Winter's sources to aid in their client's defense. The judge has yet to decide whether the notebook, which is potentially covered by a patient-psychiatrist privilege, is admissible. He has postponed until August a decision on whether he will force Ms. Winter to reveal her sources. But if he ultimately sides with the defendant, Ms. Winter will have to choose between violating her sources' trust and going to jail.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The feral government has a right to defend itself against that kind of nonsense.
</sarcasm>
And... stop. What part of CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC escapes these goons?
Freedom of the press is ever MORE critical in a constitutional republic. Democracy is mob rule, which is how they're operating these days.
No they don’t. A reporter or journalist is a citizen like the rest of us. If the constitution spelled out who is and is not a reporter, with a list of responsibilities, then maybe. The constitution only says in the first amendment that there will be freedom of the press, but does not define who that is.
There is no mandate for a reporter to watch government and there is no right for the people to know, and no special privileges for reporters. Like the rest of us, if they know details of a crime they must divulge the information. If I knew details of a felony and refused to cooperate I’d be charged as an acessory.
The interesting thing is that Colorado has a shield law, but the judge wants to know who violated his gag order.
How can we judge this story without a picture?
Journalists like to pretend that there is something sacred about what they do, sometimes in a vain attempt to elevate their profession to that of a lawyer or medical doctor. The truth of the matter is that they are nothing of the sort.
I've never heard a compelling argument for why a "journalist" deserves some special legal protection for something that could potentially expose your average citizen to criminal prosecution.
They had an interesting landmark case here in New Jersey in recent months. The judge in this case decided that a local housewife who posted a lot of material on the internet as part of a crusade to root out corruption in county government was protected by the state's "shield law." I thought it was a great decision. If some @sshole with a press credential from the New York Times or CNN is protected under a "shield law," then I should be protected, too.
I worked as a reporter and editor for over a decade. The only laws reporters need is one to hold them personally legally accountable for false reporting.
Trust me.
>>But what if the journalist has a source who knows about feral government corruption?<<
All governments are feral to one degree or another...
Colorado's shield law doesn't apply in federal court.
The trial is in Colorado district court.
To hell with journalists and their shield law.
They only print the liberal side of things anyway, let them hunt it down the best they know how.
How important was a shield law when they went looking into Obama’s background..
Thaaaaats right folks, they didn’t, the hell with them.
I sure hope you don’t believe that and just forgot the sarc tag.
That was one of the key points of contention in the Barry Bonds steroid investigation. California has a “shield law,” but it has no relevance in a Federal case.
have no interest in “journals” having special privileges. They are citizens, if they are called to be a witness in a court case, no different than you or I. If they want to claim 5th amendment, same as you or I. If they elect to not cooperate- same.
The most important consideration, from what I recall, was that the person in question was involved in the gathering of information for the purpose of disseminating it to the general public. Howdy doody, your honor! -- that description fits just about anyone who posts regularly on websites like this one.
You're right; my bad.
Reporters?
There aren’t more than a small handfull left in the entire country who would qualify.
But we have more than enough former reporters who have moved on to become Obama Water Carriers, Obama Butt Lickers and Obama Apologists.
Never in a federal criminal case, and only occasionally in a federal civil case (under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.