Judge holds journalist in civil contempt for refusing to divulge source
apnews.com
apnews.com
Internationally, United Nations, Council of Europe, and OSCE recognize journalists' right to protect their sources. The European Court of Human Rights has established source protection as essential component of freedom of expression in several cases.
Fact Checking a Claim That Fox News Says Its Programming Is ‘Entertainment,’ Not News https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-checking-a-claim-that-f...
> While Fox’s lawyers may have successfully defended Carlson against an accusation of slander by arguing that his show isn’t “news,” Fox News has not claimed that this is true of all of its content.
A government employee potentially illegally doxxed someone by giving their personal information to a journalist.
That someone wants to find out who it was using the only way they know how - asking the journalist who gave them the information.
Sources usually deserve protection, but if they were breaking the law and causing harm... is it warranted?
Not breaking the law like Snowden for the benefit of all, but to target a specific individual?
Nobody wants to consult a lawyer before talking to a reporter to see if that reporter might be held in contempt. So they simply won't talk to the reporter.
The judge might win this one, but society on the whole will lose.
Where are these arguments for the betterment of society when all the NIMBYs pop up?
(The case is weirder in that it’s basically a suit against the government that wants the info revealed, not the government. Obviously the judge wants someone higher than him to rule on it.)
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.