November 19, 2004
There is no journalist/source confidentiality protection
James Taricani is currently facing criminal contempt charges for refusing to reveal the source that illegally leaked him a copy of an FBI tape relevant to a corruption case in RI. Taricani and his lawyers say it violates the First Amendment right to the freedom of the press.
This is nonsense. The Fifth Amendment allows you to refuse to testify to your own guilt, but does not allow you to refuse to testify to protect someone else. Mafia dons have gone to prison for this for years. It is also not an abridgement of th freedom of the press, for no one is guaranteed the right to confidentiality between themselves and their journalist. Lawyer/client and doctor/patient confidentiality is one thing, but even those can be breached by court orders.
The loony-Left is going nuts over this alleged "fascism", but they've wrong. Taricani is withholding evidence, interfering with a Federal investigation, and defying the court. He should go to jail.
You're right that there is no legal protection for a journalist who refuses to reveal a source. But it is generally agreed within the newswriting community that to do so is an indefensible lack of good faith and a disgrace to the profession -- unless there are matters of extreme national security at stake. I would be willing to go to jail to protect a source, even a source I found to a be a repulsive sort. It's a risk of the job.
Posted by: mesh at November 19, 2004 12:43 PMhttp://www.mobar.org/handbook/journalist.htm
You might find this link interesting; it's a brief summary of case history on contempt and protecting sources, including a Supreme Court ruling. This is by no means a new debate, nor the first time a reporter has done time for refusing to reveal a source. It's worth noting that 31 states currently have protection clauses for journalists. Rhode Island, it goes without saying, does not.
Posted by: mesh at November 19, 2004 12:55 PMI'm lost here. You may be right that this is nonsense, but the issue, as least as they have presented it, concerns the First Amendment. Even if the Fifth Amendment doesn't protect journalist's sources, what does that have to do with it?
Posted by: Kevin at November 22, 2004 5:18 PMIn essence, he's refusing to testify. There is provision for this in the Fifth Amendment, but it doesn't apply in this case because he's protecting someone other than himself.
Posted by: ryan at November 22, 2004 6:36 PM