 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||||
|
U
S A 12. PROFESSIONAL SECRECY OR PROTECTION
OF SOURCES The Supreme Court held in 1972 that requiring journalists to
disclose their confidential sources to a grand jury does not violate
the First Amendment freedoms of speech or press. In the wake of
that decision, about half of the 50 states passed so called ?shield
laws?? that protect reporters from being forced to testify. Over time, however, a dissent to that 1972 decision, which
was written by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, has been accepted
by state and federal courts across the nation. That standard provides
that courts generally will not force a journalist to testify unless
the government could prove: (1) there is probable cause to believe
the reporter has information clearly related to a specific violation
of the law; (2) it cannot get the information any way less offensive
to the First Amendment; and (3) it has a compelling interest in
the information. When a reporter or publisher violates a pledge to keep a source?s
identity secret, however, the source can sue the reporter or publisher
for damages, using state contract law or promissory estoppel law.
Other protection afforded journalists includes the 1980 federal
Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits law enforcement officers
and other government officials from serving the news media with
search warrants unless: (1) there is probable cause to believe the
media representative has committed or is about to commit a crime;
(2) there is reason to believe the immediate seizure of the material
is necessary to prevent death or serious injury; and (3) the material
concerns classified information or the national defense.
|
questions
or comments? | |
