Protection a journalist's sources: is it an absolute?

[viper37]

There is a case right now that is spilling some ink:

Reporter shocked RCMP planned to shadow him over spy agency leakI don't have an english link for the other text, but apparently, there are 2 more journalists that were at the very least investigated (they had permission to follow them but tapping their phones was not granted, yet we don't know if they did any of this to find their sources, we only know they investigated the leaks) by the RCMP and CSIS.


The story:

Adil Charkaoui (another one of these nice guys that defend women's freedom to wear a veil and constantly complain about the racism and intolerance of our society) and Abfousian Abdelrazik were recorded planning to detonate a bomb in an airplane.  No charges were ever brought, but eventually, that document was leaked to the press.


Now, one of the culprit (Abdelrazik) suing the government because he claims they themselves leaked the document.  Government defends itself by saying "we didn't do it and we are actively seeking who did it".


So, enters our journalists.  Trying to discover who could be their leak, the policed investigated 3 journalists (that we know so far).  The journalist are shocked to learn they were followed and investigated, they claim it's a violation of our freedom of the press.  RCMP and CSIS claim the leak damaged their investigation into these nice guys, totally integrated into our society with no sign of radicalization whatsoever.  I mean, it's not because you happen to be suspected of being an AQ sleeper agent and you defend the right of women to be completely covered in public that you would be a radical, right?  And any ties with a terrorists organization would be purely coincidental.  The fact that he preaches hate and that his students later departed for Jihad is certainly no cause to alarm and should not mean this indivudal warrants deportation to his country of origin.  By all means, he should stay here and convince some more youngsters to leave for Jihad.  I've learn that much from the Canadian politics thread. 



So, I agree that police shouldn't force a journalist to divulge his/her sources.  That's the price to pay if we want a free press, otherwise no one would ever want to inform a journalist about anything, fearing retribution.  What the Liberals did to Daniel Leblanc was shameful, but it's not like it really mattered, since it was a Liberal government, after all, and a Liberal government can do no wrong (that too I learnt from the Canadian politics thread ).



But I disagree that police (and CSIS) should not have the right to investigate by themselves to find the sources in this specific case.  It is hard to determine if it really hurt their ongoing investigation, if they were trying to catch them in the act (I suspect a simple phone conversation as evidence of a terrorist plot would not go that far in a Canadian court of law, but BB will correct me if I'm wrong ) or if they simply abandonned their investigation because there was no sign this would come to fruition.


Imho, if someone from CSIS or the RCMP leaked confidential info to anyone and that info damaged an ongoing investigation by alerting the suspects, it has to be investigated by any means legally possible.  And so far, from what info I have, and given the government is sued by one of the targets, they had every right to try to discover that source.  But I can also entertain the possibility that the info was leaked by someone who thought CSIS/RCMP weren't doing anything about it.

What say you?  Should it be totally absolute?  The moment a journalist publishes something, no effort should be done to uncover the source of the leak, no matter the circumstances?  Anything else is an attack on freedom of the press?

[Martinus]

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

[The Brain]

Didn't read the weird OP, but I like to post.

I don't care too much about freedom of the press. I care much more about freedom of speech.

[Barrister]

There are many privileges and confidences recognized in the common law.  There is solicitor-client, priest-penitent, marital, doctor-patient...

But journalist-source is not one of them.

[Scipio]

Not in America, not from the Feds. Some states have a shield law. You want to protect your source, your ass better be prepared to go to fucking jail.

[Martinus]

In Poland, it is considered sacrosanct, but then again we have some weird over the top "freedoms" that are a backlash against the commie times.

[crazy canuck]

There have been high profile cases where journalists have risked jail time for contempt of court rather than obey a court order to give evidence regarding their sources. 

[viper37]

but the case here is not about the journalist revealing the source.  It's about police work to discover the source.
La Presse says it's immoral (an attack on freedom of the press) to even try to discover a source by investigating a journalist.

[Martinus]

but the case here is not about the journalist revealing the source.  It's about police work to discover the source.
La Presse says it's immoral (an attack on freedom of the press) to even try to discover a source by investigating a journalist.

That's idiotic.

[crazy canuck]

but the case here is not about the journalist revealing the source.  It's about police work to discover the source.
La Presse says it's immoral (an attack on freedom of the press) to even try to discover a source by investigating a journalist.

That's idiotic.

[dps]

There are many privileges and confidences recognized in the common law.  There is solicitor-client, priest-penitent, marital, doctor-patient...

But journalist-source is not one of them.

Nor should it be. 

Journalists want everything everyone else does to be 100% transparent, but then reserve unto themselves the right to keep their secrets.  Fucking hypocrites.

[LaCroix]

what's a scenario where a journalist's source should be revealed? only thing that comes to mind are phony/iffy sources that make big accusations.

[Admiral Yi]

what's a scenario where a journalist's source should be revealed? only thing that comes to mind are phony/iffy sources that make big accusations.

I don't think that makes the cut at all.  An unnamed source told me Obama is a Kenyan citizen.  So what?

I think the balancing act has to involve compelling state interests such as national security or evidence of an underlying crime.

[crazy canuck]

what's a scenario where a journalist's source should be revealed? only thing that comes to mind are phony/iffy sources that make big accusations.

It would be more like Journalist source says they witnessed x where x is the commission of a criminal offence.

[OttoVonBismarck]

This is one of those situations where you need to know your audience, the long rambling post starting this thread where 85% of it was thinly veiled editorializing isn't necessary. The people of Languish already know the score with Muslim extremists being investigated for planning to bomb airplanes.

But wading through all that nonsense, legally the solicitors have already answered that in Canada/U.S. it's certainly not absolute that a journalist gets confidentiality protection recognized by the courts. And further, it's entirely proper for the police to follow people they believe will give them leads. Only when the police need to violate property, privacy or other established rights to continue their investigation does it even warrant concern at all. In those cases, that is what the warrant system is for, but just tailing a journalist, seeing who he speaks with in public, and trying to generally ferret out information--that's what police do, and they're allowed to do it to people that may not be targets of investigation but are only likely to perhaps give information about such a target, and when the investigation involves tailing them in public places and observing their activities it's not a constitutional/rights concern and doesn't even require a warrant. Journalists aren't super-citizens who are immune from being observed by police.

I will say I do think journalists have a double standard when the cameras are turned to them. It's looking like Sarah Koenig is going to do the next season of the podcast Serial about Bowe Bergdahl, but Serial was so popular that Sarah Koenig is now somewhat of a celebrity in addition to being a journalist. So other journalists were following her around and reporting on the fact that she's been seen observing some of Bergdahl's hearings and such. Her response? To get kinda pissy and say they need to respect her trying to do her job.

This is the response almost all "non-journalists" who find themselves suddenly under public scrutiny want to say to journalists sticking cameras in their face, and some of them do say it, but journalists will (permissibly) ignore those protests. It's just funny to see it happen to one of them and see them react the same way. Journalists don't get to go "waaah I'm not the story!", the public decides what they're interested in and journalists get to report on it, and if that means the camera shines on people who "don't want to be the story", even other journalists, then tough shit.