Former Fox News Reporter Ordered by Judge to Reveal Anonymous Source | Hacker News Reader

Former Fox News Reporter Ordered by Judge to Reveal Anonymous Source

yahoo.com

10 pointswoldemariam16 comments

> "But applying the binding case law of this Circuit, the Court concludes that Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case.”

Looks like the judge is just following precedent, he wants them to appeal this decision and get higher circuit judge to make the decision.

But tbh, I don't get why the press gets to protect a source when the very fact of them sourcing the story is illegal. Doesn't amount to obstruction of justice, to conceal their identity? Can the press talk to criminals and then hide the criminal's identity from the court when being sued for damages? Or is leaking that information not a crime at all?

Does simple non-cooperation with law-enforcement count as "obstruction"?

in most jurisdictions obstruction is a physical act

I believe so, as long as it can be poven beyond doubt that your cooperation would lead to convicting a criminal. But IANAL!

>But tbh, I don't get why the press gets to protect a source when the very fact of them sourcing the story is illegal.

Because the 1st Amendment supersedes any laws that are passed to criminalize journalism. Unfortunately our judiciary (and government as a whole) has been going off the rails for decades and our Constitutional rights matter less and less every day.

> Because the 1st Amendment supersedes any laws that are passed to criminalize journalism.

I can't seem to find the part in the 1st amendment which says reporters have an absolute right to not reveal their sources.

I'll help you find it.

> First Amendment

>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

Abridge means, "to limit or curtail".

By any reasonable definition, forcing reporters to reveal their sources abridges freedom of the press (if not crippling it all together).

> By any reasonable definition, forcing reporters to reveal their sources abridges freedom of the press (if not crippling it all together).

The 1st amendment doesn't explicitly site protecting of sources and it is up to interpretation. My interpretation doesn't include absolute protection of sources and those tasked with interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court, don't see it that way either. Protection of sources has always been found to be a limited right. Even the speech part of the 1st amendment has been found to be limited in some ways.

And the internment of American citizens with Japanese heritage was also found to be permissible. That doesn't mean that it was Constitutional by any reasonable standard, it means that our horribly flawed system doesn't always function correctly.

>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;

That is the text of the Constitution. It is simply absurd to suggest that forcing a member of the press to disclose their source does not "prohibit" much less "abridge" the freedom of the press. The founders understood that the independence of the 4th estate was absolutely critical to the function of a self-governed republic. Allowing the powerful to pass laws criminalizing journalism by forcing them to reveal their sources under penalty of imprisonment is simply an end-run around the Constitution by those who wish to retain their power and remain beyond scrutiny. This is especially true in the current environment, where the government classifies virtually everything they do, down to the most mundane government functions. Democracy dies in darkness, and so do republics.

> 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;

This case is not about a law passed by Congress abriding freedom of the press. This is a decision made by the judiciary after weighing the competing rights of two parties before it.

There is no US constitutional right afforded to journalists to protect sources, they have been jailed in the past for refusing to divulge information.

At the state level, varying by state, there are limited "Shield Laws" that protect "journalistic privilege".

See:

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-law...

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1104/confidenti...

and other law commentary sites.

>There is no US constitutional right afforded to journalists to protect sources, they have been jailed in the past for refusing to divulge information.

The US government has routinely violated the Constitutional rights of Americans (and non-Americans). That doesn't make it legal or Constitutional.

I thought like lawyers and doctors with their clients/patients, crime was an exception?

Judges becoming polical hacks is the last nail in the coffin of the free world.

The free world is long dead. They only keep a puppet at the window so you think it's still alive.

> Judges becoming polical hacks is the last nail in the coffin of the free world.

Lazy, myopic political comments are the last nail in the coffin of HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com