Reporter's shield laws

[Tim May]

On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 11:25 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>> Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness
>> transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from
>> what I hear).
>>
>> "Mr. McCullagh, the court hereby grants you transactional immunity for
>> your testimony today. Now Mr. McCullagh, please answer the prosecutors
>> questions and give the court all of your notes made regarding this
>> witness."
>
> I didn't assert the 5A, but the 1A, during my brief experience before
> the Grumpy Judge.
>
> What Tim and Dave and John seem not to understand is that journalists
> routinely refuse to reveal their sources even when threatened with
> subpoenas and contempt of court. Some editors will only hire reporters
> who pledge they'll go to jail before revealing a source.

Don't tar me with that brush, Declan!

I said absolutely nothing about what fraction of reporters stand their 
ground, what fraction roll over, what fraction end up going to jail on 
contempt charges, and so on.

I've addressed two basic issues:

-- the issue of shield laws, which I think are clearly unconstitutional 
and which raise issues of state sanctioning of some reporters over other 
reporters

-- the claim that assertion of 5A rights lets a witness choose not to 
testify


I made no claims about whether reporters routinely refuse to name their 
sources. (I did hint that Jeff Gordon, the victim/witness/real 
prosecutor probably took into account the "can of worms" he would be 
opening if he sought to compell disclosure of certain things...an 
implicit reference to the fact that many reporters will refuse to name 
sources and to disclose things said to them.)

> Some
> journalists may be schmucks -- the local reporter in the Bell case who
> took the stand and blabbed for the better part of an hour is one
> example -- but many are principled. This may make prosecutors leery
> of calling them in the first place.

Hence the comment I made about can of worms.

I think John Young would have had a much harder time claiming reporter's 
privilege. Checking the archives for the period when Bell was trying to 
track down home addresses of agents should clarify this point. John 
might have done better to assert 5A rights and make them force the issue 
by dropping the line of questioning or granting him some form of 
immunity.

--Tim May