There is a case right now that is spilling some ink:
Reporter shocked RCMP planned to shadow him over spy agency leak (http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/reporter-shocked-rcmp-planned-to-shadow-him-over-spy-agency-leak)I 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?
English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: viper37 on November 12, 2015, 03:04:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2015, 03:38:12 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 12, 2015, 03:04:30 PM
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.
:yes:
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2015, 01:33:41 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 12, 2015, 06:46:29 PM
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 12, 2015, 06:46:29 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2015, 07:02:25 PMI 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.
newsroom came to mind. major news channel releases a story about something that appears somewhat plausible, cites major source within U.S. intelligence. turns out to be complete bunk.
that's what i mean - an example of a national security issue or evidence of underlying crime. my first reaction = blanket protection. but before i commit, i need to know a specific, extreme example.
Quote from: crazy canuckIt would be more like Journalist source says they witnessed x where x is the commission of a criminal offence.
why would the source need to be discovered? in that scenario, investigators can check it out... if there's nothing, there's nothing. i think there's an equal, if not greater, importance of protecting journalist-source confidentiality than there is re: attorneys, priests, doctors, etc. actually, i could see a scenario where the source says "i'm gonna kill X tomorrow." there, yeah, so maybe a blanket protection except for that scenario.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 12, 2015, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuckIt would be more like Journalist source says they witnessed x where x is the commission of a criminal offence.
why would the source need to be discovered? in that scenario, investigators can check it out... if there's nothing, there's nothing.
How would investigators be able to check it out if they are not able to interview the source?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2015, 07:29:05 PMHow would investigators be able to check it out if they are not able to interview the source?
if a crime occurred, investigators can investigate the crime. not knowing who the source is doesn't mean they can't investigate the crime itself and figure it out on their own. why not just require priests to reveal confessions in that case, or attorneys. crime really isn't a big enough reason.
journalist-source confidentiality leads to greater openness and more spread of information. you'd have more leaks, which i think is a good thing. news companies/journalists would still have discretion.
The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 12, 2015, 07:10:09 PM
The people of Languish already know the score with Muslim extremists being investigated for planning to bomb airplanes.
I don't think so, the Canadian politics thread of the last campaign seems to have proven that it's not the case.
Quote
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.
I tend to agree with that vision. I think it's ok for a journalist to protect its sources, but certainly, the authorities should be allowed to discover them, especially if they are accused of being the leak or if there is truth that publication of a story compromised an investigation.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).
Well, I asked, because it ain't clear-cut, it's not black&white.
If a journalist does not protect his/her sources, there is no difference between a journalist and law enforcement.
Imagine the case of a kidnapping. An ex convict on probation has information on the subject but he wasn't supposed to be where he was and if he talks to the police, he's going back to jail. Talking to a journalist maybe a way to help solve the crime without endangering his freedom.
Imagine a case of government corruption. Will the government ever allow its employees to testify openly? Of course not. We saw it the last time the Liberals were in power, there was a frantic search for the government source that revealed the Sponsorship scandal. Not that it matters now, with the same people in power, again.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2015, 02:29:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).
Well, I asked, because it ain't clear-cut, it's not black&white.
If a journalist does not protect his/her sources, there is no difference between a journalist and law enforcement.
Imagine the case of a kidnapping. An ex convict on probation has information on the subject but he wasn't supposed to be where he was and if he talks to the police, he's going back to jail. Talking to a journalist maybe a way to help solve the crime without endangering his freedom.
Imagine a case of government corruption. Will the government ever allow its employees to testify openly? Of course not. We saw it the last time the Liberals were in power, there was a frantic search for the government source that revealed the Sponsorship scandal. Not that it matters now, with the same people in power, again.
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!")
Quote from: LaCroix on November 13, 2015, 01:32:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2015, 07:29:05 PMHow would investigators be able to check it out if they are not able to interview the source?
if a crime occurred, investigators can investigate the crime. not knowing who the source is doesn't mean they can't investigate the crime itself and figure it out on their own. why not just require priests to reveal confessions in that case, or attorneys. crime really isn't a big enough reason.
journalist-source confidentiality leads to greater openness and more spread of information. you'd have more leaks, which i think is a good thing. news companies/journalists would still have discretion.
But that is the point, if a journalist has been told by a source that the source is an eye witness to the crime, why shouldn't the policy be able to obtain evidence directly from the source?
Veep: at least in the US there are anonymous tip phone lines that take care of the issues you mentioned.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 04:07:51 PM
Veep: at least in the US there are anonymous tip phone lines that take care of the issues you mentioned.
Yeah, we have them too. Going through a journalist would definitely not be the way to go if one wanted to report things anonymously.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).
I think that is a good point. Not only is a journalist tough to define, but the role of a traditional journalist is far less important. For example, today everyone with internet access is capable of getting information to the general public. If I had conclusive evidence that Barack Obama was having affairs with a sequence of really young interns, and I posted it on a site as obscure as this one, in a couple of days that information would be out in the general public. Back in the day, whether that became known to the general public would be dependent on not just the press discovering it, but also them reporting it (see JFK).
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).
yup, agreed. there would have to be tighter restrictions on who gets classified as a "journalist" vs. blogger, etc.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 02:43:58 AM
yup, agreed. there would have to be tighter restrictions on who gets classified as a "journalist" vs. blogger, etc.
The more reasonable alternative is to give everyone "journalistic privilege."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 02:48:11 AMThe more reasonable alternative is to give everyone "journalistic privilege."
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 02:54:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 02:56:20 AMTell 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).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 02:56:20 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 02:54:44 AM
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 03:02:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 04:53:37 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 03:02:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 06:38:29 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 04:53:37 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 03:02:33 AM
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.
:unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2015, 01:33:41 PM
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 03:02:33 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 02:56:20 AMTell 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. ;)
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 13, 2015, 04:04:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 04:07:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 07:01:10 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2015, 01:33:41 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 09:28:52 AMJournalism 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.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 09:28:52 AMJournalism 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).
agreed, but that doesn't touch on my point
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2015, 10:00:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 04:07:51 PM
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.