from Hacker News

In Major Ruling, Court Orders Times Reporter to Testify

by hedonist on 7/19/13, 8:35 PM with 31 comments

  • by jetti on 7/19/13, 8:55 PM

    The following really struck me:

    "In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. — the court whose decisions cover the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — ruled that the First Amendment provides no protection to reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them."

    Especially seeing as there is no such thing a leak that isn't unauthorized. It seems another step in hiding information from the public because would-be leakers now need to worry that the reporter they give information to would be forced to reveal their source.

  • by lawnchair_larry on 7/19/13, 9:14 PM

    Doesn't seem any different than Judith Miller, who is mentioned at the end of page 2. She went to prison instead of revealing her sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Contempt_of_cour...

  • by ferdo on 7/19/13, 9:08 PM

    The government ruled in favor of the government and against individual rights again? At least they're consistent.

  • by linuxhansl on 7/19/13, 9:13 PM

    Anybody surprised about this?

    This is in line with what we have seen before. The "war on the whistle blower".

    Next we'll see attempts to make it illegal to publish classified information after it has been received (or maybe it is already - see the Wikileaks disaster). In that case the reporter and the news outlet itself would be held responsible.

  • by tptacek on 7/19/13, 9:55 PM

    Federal law doesn't recognize a "reporter's privilege" to refuse testimony about sources. Some states do (this is a federal case, not a state one) but those protections are often qualified, for instance preventing reporters from being forced to testify as a "first resort", but requiring testimony if all other investigative avenues are exhausted.

  • by cliveowen on 7/19/13, 9:01 PM

    This is eerily similar to the plot of the movie "Nothing but the truth" starring Kate Beckinsale as a reporter outing a C.I.A. agent. In the movie the reporter outs a C.I.A. operative and is then prosecuted for not revealing her source. If I understand correctly in this case the situation is even worse, the source of the leak is known and been prosecuted and the reporter has been asked to testify in his trial, though I guess the reporter never breached the law.

  • by jpdoctor on 7/19/13, 9:50 PM

    To save everyone from having to look it up:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  • by PhasmaFelis on 7/19/13, 9:12 PM

    Paywalled. Anyone got a readable link?