Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

What's the legal basis for journalists' notes being "privileged"? There's protections for lawyers and doctors, but what exists for journalists aside from a vague sense of "journalism is important for democracy"?

View on HN

If you read the article, it explains reporter privilege and the legal basis thereof. It comes from an interpretation of the First Amendment, the argument being that free speech would be chilled if reporters had to cough up the details of everyone they talk to in their investigations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege

"Reporters privilege"

It's also just common sense. If you make it easy for anyone to sue a journalist in a way that requires them to reveal their confidential sources, the sources are no longer confidential, and people in the future won't feel safe sharing information with journalists for fear of being exposed through bogus lawsuits.

this just shows that whistleblower protection still does not go far enough. it should be possible to reveal such information without fear of retribution in the first place. in an open and just society this would not be necessary. but even if the sources remain anonymous, anyone making accusations public should at least be able to provide proof for the accusation itself. judges should be able to see that proof but also possibly keep it sealed from the public if necessary.

> Given this glaring overstep and our steadfast effort to protect our journalists and our sources, we declined to turn over that information, citing a First Amendment protection called “reporter’s privilege.” Reporter’s privilege, which is recognized by 40 states based on numerous legal interpretations of the United States Constitution, serves as a basis of protection and privacy for journalists and the sources who share important information with the press.

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.

It's in the category of "you better have a damn good probable cause" if you want to forcibly intervene with publishing.

The first amendment has freedom of the press.

Fundamental right of the protection of journalistic sources i think. He should be able to scrub his notes of any name before handling them over, don't you think?

Good journalists usually use pseudonyms to minimize the damage they can cause to whistleblowers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com