Skip to main content

Blog Post #7

Shield laws provides protection for the journalists "privilege” which are legal rules which protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or other information. These laws allow sources to feel safe approaching journalists when discussing secretive information or information that seems expository. Although no statutory protection exists at a federal level - every state offers some protection at local and statewide levels. 


Although government involvement with journalists may seem like a concept that would only occur in rare circumstances, it is actually quite common. A study conducted by Brigham Young University law professor RonNell Andersen Jones, for example, found that in 2006 alone journalists were served with more than 7,200 subpoenas from state and local governments, and about 800 from the federal government. (Society of Professional Journalists)

Occasionally journalists will be required to appear in Court if information is disclosed to them that the authorities were unable to gather. However, there is a lot of controversy surrounding this because journalists want to preserve their privilege as best as they can whereas authorities see the information they gathered as crucial for achieving a favorable verdict For example in 2016 a panel of judges in Manhattan Appellate Division ruled that Frances Robles would not be forced to appear in an upcoming trial for the murder of "Baby Hope".  The panel based their ruling on what it called “the consistent tradition in this state of providing the broadest possible protection to ‘the sensitive role of gathering and disseminating news of public events.’” (Feuer, 2016) The panel found that the information obtained by Robles from the interview was not "crucial or necessary". (Feuer, 2016)This overturned the previous decision made by a Supreme Court Justice that Robles should submit her notes from the jailhouse interview with the murder suspect and testify to reveal information obtained during the interview as well.

I believe that shield laws are an important way of fostering good journalism and preserving the rights given by the First Amendment. I believe that far less journalists would be compelled to publicize information and opinions in the way that they do if they received no protection under shield laws. The controversy surrounding the Robles interview highlights the discrepancies in opinions within the own justice system and also across professional fields regarding journalist privilege. 

Feuer, Alan. “Times Reporter Can't Be Compelled to Testify in Baby Hope Case, Court Rules.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Oct. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/nyregion/times-reporter-baby-hope-case.html.

“Struggling to Report: The Fight for a Federal Shield Law - Society of Professional Journalists.” Society of Professional Journalists - Improving and Protecting Journalism since 1909, www.spj.org/shieldlaw-faq.asp.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...