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

[LaCroix]

Tell me what are the advantages of having "journalists" enjoy a privacy privilege that the rest of us don't.

greater spread of information. people are more likely to become sources if they know there's no way for their identity to be revealed (absent journalist revealing it or some narrow exception).

[Martinus]

blanket protection for journalists doesn't exist, and i'm asking why not given the potential benefits. but for blanket protection to have any merit, it has to conform to reality.  marti's point is valid. there are lots of different types of journalists, and many are hardly professionals, so, only "professional" journalists should receive a blanket protection re: sources.

Tell me what are the advantages of having "journalists" enjoy a privacy privilege that the rest of us don't.

I think you are putting this question on its head. It's not about giving journalists more rights - it's about limiting the "journalist privilege" to only some people (i.e. journalists) because if you balance out public interests involved, giving the same privileges to everybody would be greatly damaging to law enforcement and police investigation. So it is a compromise.

I also agree with Dorsey that this is probably less important today than it was in the past.

[Admiral Yi]

greater spread of information. people are more likely to become sources if they know there's no way for their identity to be revealed (absent journalist revealing it or some narrow exception).

This explains the advantage of journalistic privilege at all.  It doesn't make the case for limiting it to a select few.  Any schmo can spread information.

[Martinus]

greater spread of information. people are more likely to become sources if they know there's no way for their identity to be revealed (absent journalist revealing it or some narrow exception).

This explains the advantage of journalistic privilege at all.  It doesn't make the case for limiting it to a select few.  Any schmo can spread information.

I thought my post addressed that.

[The Brain]

greater spread of information. people are more likely to become sources if they know there's no way for their identity to be revealed (absent journalist revealing it or some narrow exception).

This explains the advantage of journalistic privilege at all.  It doesn't make the case for limiting it to a select few.  Any schmo can spread information.

I thought my post addressed that.

[Zanza]

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.

Germany has codified the journalist source confidence in criminal law. Same article as the one that gives privileges to other professions such as parliamentarians, lawyers, priests, doctors etc. As the press is considered to be the fourth power in the state giving them certain privileges protects their implicit constitional role. I think that in balance society gets more out of this than it loses, e.g. by having a check on government corruption. By the way, journalists can name their sources, so the privilege is one way,  unlike priests, doctors or especially lawyers, that may not divulge their professional secrets.

[crazy canuck]

Tell me what are the advantages of having "journalists" enjoy a privacy privilege that the rest of us don't.

greater spread of information. people are more likely to become sources if they know there's no way for their identity to be revealed (absent journalist revealing it or some narrow exception).

Journalism has done pretty well under the present system.

[viper37]

Hmmm...in those two examples, could those persons technically consult an attorney...who would then be able to reveal the important information on their behalf, while keeping their client/source anonymous...or does their privilege only protect the information itself, and not the source?  (I suppose the danger there is whistleblowing and crime-committing lawyers saying "I didn't commit the crime/leak the info...my anonymous client did!")

well, then the police would look at the attorney's client list, and make a list of possible suspect.  I susppose that is a risk.

[viper37]

Veep: at least in the US there are anonymous tip phone lines that take care of the issues you mentioned.

those lines are never truly anonymous, I think.

[viper37]

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.

Germany has codified the journalist source confidence in criminal law. Same article as the one that gives privileges to other professions such as parliamentarians, lawyers, priests, doctors etc. As the press is considered to be the fourth power in the state giving them certain privileges protects their implicit constitional role. I think that in balance society gets more out of this than it loses, e.g. by having a check on government corruption. By the way, journalists can name their sources, so the privilege is one way,  unlike priests, doctors or especially lawyers, that may not divulge their professional secrets.

it seems a gtood way to act.

[LaCroix]

Journalism has done pretty well under the present system.

i think so, but it can be improved. spread of information should be encouraged. we already encourage people to confide in their priests.

[crazy canuck]

Journalism has done pretty well under the present system.

i think so, but it can be improved. spread of information should be encouraged. we already encourage people to confide in their priests.

I am not so sure we should be encouraging people who have witnessed crimes to go to journalists but not the police (through tip lines or otherwise).

[LaCroix]

agreed, but that doesn't touch on my point

[dps]

Veep: at least in the US there are anonymous tip phone lines that take care of the issues you mentioned.

those lines are never truly anonymous, I think.

They can be, if you can still find a pay phone.