You are here

reporters privilege

Sharply Divided Court Rules NY Shield Law Protects Reporter From Colorado Subpoena

The New York Court of Appeals ruled today that Fox News reporter Jana Winter is protected by that state's media shield law from identifying her anonymous law enforcement sources in reponse to a Colorado defendant's subpoena, Politico reports. New York's highest court was sharply divided in a 4-3 decision.

Winter had an exclusive about a notebook belonging to James Holmes, who is charged with the mass killing at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

The majority said a ruling against Winter would violate New York's strong public policy favoring the protection of journalists, which made New York "'the media capital of the country, if not the world,"' Politico reports. The dissent said Colorado laws should apply.

 

 

Former Attorney General Warns Against Media Shield Law

Michael Mukasey, who served as attorney general under former President George W. Bush, is arguing against a bill pending in the U.S. Senate that would allow reporters to protect their confidential sources in most instances, The Wall Street Journal reports. Mukasey argues the bill is '"fraught with near-meaningless amibiguity'" on who would be covered journalists and that the bill would give judges too much power to decide "whether the disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest and thus not protected," The Journal also reports.

Obama Administration has made 'most concerted effort at least since the plumbers and the enemies lists of the Nixon Administration to intimidate officials in Washington from ever talking to a reporter'

Last week, ProPublica founder and executive chairman Paul Steiger received the Burton Benjamin Memorial award from the Committee to Protect Journalists. In his remarks, Steiger said that President Barack Obama's administration has been the most dangerous president for the First Amendment since President Richard Nixon: "For the starkest comparison, I urge any of you who haven’t already done so to read last month’s report, commissioned by CPJ and written by Len Downie, former editor of the Washington Post. It lays out in chilling detail how an administration that took office promising to be the most transparent in history instead has carried out the most intrusive surveillance of reporters ever attempted. It also has made the most concerted effort at least since the plumbers and the enemies lists of the Nixon Administration to intimidate officials in Washington from ever talking to a reporter."

 

most concerted effort at least since the plumbers and the enemies lists of the Nixon Administration to intimidate officials in Washington from ever talking to a reporter.

GCs: James Risen Should Seek Certiorari With U.S. Supreme Court

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Fri, 11/15/2013 - 10:55

This week is sort of the high holidays for media-law attorneys: Media Law Resource Center’s annual meetings, a communications law program at Practising Law Institute and several other events. There was a fascinating discussion Thursday at PLI on reporters’ privilege with several general counsels of major medial companies.

New York Times reporter James Risen, who the Fourth Circuit has ruled must identify a confidential source in the case of a former CIA agent suspected of being a leaker, should seek certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court--otherwise he may have to go to jail to protect his unnamed source, said Lee Levine, a leading First Amendment lawyer with Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz.

But Levine said he does not think that the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case.

If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, there could be five votes in favor of recognizing a qualified common law privilege for reporters’ confidential sources, Levine said. Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the key vote, he said.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who often votes unfavorably on First Amendment issues, might vote in favor of recognizing a qualified common law privilege because he favors balancing tests in his jurisprudence, Levine said.

David McCraw, vice president and assistant general counsel for The New York Times Company, said there will never be an ideal test case on reporters’ privilege and he fears the next test case would be brought by a "blogger in a bathrobe.”

Karen Kaiser, associate general counsel for The Associated Press, said the "time is now to bring these critical principles to the forefront."

Barbara Wall, vice president and senior associate general counsel for Gannett and who was part of the group who attended meetings with Attorney General Eric Holder after it was revealed that both Associated Press and Fox News had phone lines tapped by federal law enforcement without notice, said the federal prosecutors “felt, particularly with the Rosen subpoena, they felt they had to allege that Rosen was involved in criminal behavior.” Rosen was alleged in court papers to have broken the law as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator, but he was not charged.

The Department of Justice’s draft revised guidelines, which still have to be finalized, are an improvement, said Bruce Brown of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Most of the panelists favor the reporters shield bill pending in the U.S. Senate.

Kaiser said, that before prosecutors can access information from the media without notifying them ahead of time, the shield bill would require a judge to find that there is clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would be a threat to an ongoing criminal investigation.

The shield law "does eliminate clear prosecutorial overreach," Kaiser said.

Eve Burton, senior vice president and general counsel for The Hearst Corporation, was the sole contrarian on the panel in opposing the shield bill.

The privilege would not apply at all in the national security context, Burton said.

Separately, Burton said there is another issue with media companies moving their computer systems into the cloud.

Microsoft and AOL are willing to contract with media companies that they will always provide notice that the government has sought to access information about the media companies--unless there is a governmental order precluding disclosure, Burton said. But Google and Amazon are not, she said.

Google and Amazon want to retain the discretion not to have to disclose that there has been governmental access to media companies’ information, Burton said.

The result is that Hearst and other companies are not joining the cloud or taking their business elsewhere, Burton said.

Google and Microsoft and other tech companies are better at protecting from hackers than media companies are, but they are not willing to go to jail to protect their sources, Wall said. So the middle ground might be to have some computing functions on the cloud, but to keep e-mail in-house, she said.

 

Does New York's Shield Law Protect a Reporter In Aurora Shooting Case?

Journalist Jana Winter was subpoeaned by defense lawyers for James Holmes, the defendant charged with the mass murder of movie theatregoers in Aurora, Colorado, in 2012, about who her law enforcement sources were for a story "which said Holmes sent a notebook to his psychiatrist that indicated he had plans for the shootings," the New York Law Journal reported this week. The New York Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether the New York shield law should apply to Winter when she was subpoeaned in a Colorado criminal court case.

Winter's attorneys argued that New York's shield law protecting reporters from disclosing their confidential sources applies to New York-based reporters covering affairs outside of the state. Attorney Christopher Handman argued, according to the NY Law Journal, that "'the idea that New York, prideful as it was about being the center of the dissemination and the gathering of news throughout the world, would limit its protections to reporters talking to sources in New York about parochial New York affairs flies in the face of the way the Legislature broadly defined news to be worldwide events.'"

Politico: Supreme Court May Get Reporter's Privilege Plea

New York Times reporter James Risen has asked the Fourth Circuit to put on hold its ruling denying that a reporters privilege applies in a criminal case in which he could be forced to testify, Politico reports. Meanwhile, Risen will seek for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.

The underlying criminal case involves former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who "has been indicted for leaking Risen information about a CIA operation to provide Iran with flawed nuclear designs as part of an effort to set back that country's alleged nuclear weapons program," according to Politico.

Risen has vowed to go to jail before revealing who his source was.
 

Obama 'Most Aggressive' Since Nixon in War on Leaks

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Fri, 10/11/2013 - 07:58

President Barack Obama’s “war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive” since President Richard Nixon’s administration, according to the author of a report commissioned by the Committee to Protect Journalists. The report, “The Obama Administration and the Press: Leak investigations and surveillance in post-9/11 America,” was released Thursday.

The report was written by Leonard Downie Jr., who was an editor involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate, along with reporting by Sara Rafsky.

The committee is usually focused on the state of the media in other countries, and this report is its first comprehensive report on relations between the American executive branch and the media.

Six government employees and two contractors have been prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act for allegedly leaking classified information to the press during the Obama administration, while there were only three prosecutions under all other presidents, the report said.

Following Wikileaks' disclosure of classified information, the Obama White House established an Insider Threat Task Force to develop a government-wide program for “’insider threat detection and prevention to improve protection and reduce potential vulnerabilities of classified information from exploitation, compromise or other unauthorized disclosure,’” Downey wrote.

As a result, every federal department and agency was told to set up Insider Threat Programs to prevent government workers from disclosing information without authorization.

Reporters also shared that their Freedom of Information Act requests face “denials, delays, unresponsiveness or demands for exorbitant fees, with cooperation or obstruction varying widely from agency to agency,” Downey said.

During a press conference on the report Thursday morning, Downey said that government employees are increasingly afraid to talk to the press and not just about classified information. Downey also said that Obama’s promise to be the most transparent presidency in American history has meant avoiding the institutional press in favor of a “sophisticated governmental public relations strategy” focused on social-media messaging and creating its own web-site content.

For example, photographers are allowed much less access to the president than in the past, and most photographs of Obama are from the White House institutional photographer, Downey said.

“None of these measures is anything like the government controls, censorship, repression, physical danger, and even death that journalists and their sources face daily in many countries throughout the world—from Asia, the Middle East and Africa to Russia, parts of Europe and Latin American, and including nations that have offered asylum from U.S. prosecution to [leaker Edward] Snowden,” Downie wrote in he report. “But the United States, with its unique constitutional guarantees of free speech and a free press—essential to its tradition of government accountability—is not any other country.”

Jack Goldsmith, a former lawyer for President Bush’s administration told Downey that leakers have to be prepared to face legal consequences, but that leaks ‘“serve a really important role in helping to correct government malfeasance, to encourage government to be careful about what it does in secret and to preserve democratic processes.’”

Gaps In Media Shield Law Legislation Worry Not Just Opponents

U.S. News and World Report recounted last week that even supporters of passing legislation that would allow journalists to keep their confidential sources shielded admit that the legislation would not address the situation in which the U.S. Department of Justice seized without notice two months of Associated Press phone records. Just today, several outlets are reporting that a former FBI agent was identified in those phone logs and has now agreed to plead guilty to leaking news of a failed 2012 "underwear bomb" plot by al Qaeda, the Wall Street Journal reports: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230375960457909362328002599...

Another concern raised about the bill as currently drafted is that it would not provide protection to citizen bloggers. Moreover, an amendment backed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., "intentionally excises WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange from supposed legal protections for journalists," according to U.S. News.

One of the legislative opponents to the bill, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told U.S. News in an email: "The extension of the bill's protections to a so-called 'citizen blogger,' a journalist who is not employed by traditional media outlets, is entirely subject to the judge's willingness to exercise discretion, after finding that doing so would be (a) in the interest of justice and (b) necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities. Thus, while for some the privilege is automatic and known in advance, those outside the favored status may only hope that a reviewing federal judge deems them sufficiently worthy of protection."

Editorial: Federal Journalist Shield Law Needed

While acknowledging the criticism that the federal shield bill would not on its face protect citizen-journalists, this Washington Post editorial argues that there is an adequate release valve because the bill "would also empower judges to extend its protections to anyone if they determine that doing so would be 'in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities."'

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - reporters privilege