Journalism Groups Decry Ruling Against Reporter

[ProSense]

Journalism Groups Decry Ruling Against Reporter

Several journalism organizations are criticizing a judge's decision to find a suburban Chicago reporter in contempt for not disclosing how he obtained confidential police reports about a gruesome double murder...Judge Gerald Kinney on Friday fined Joe Hosey, a reporter and editor for the AOL news website Patch, $300 a day for not revealing who leaked him the documents. Kinney also said if Hosey doesn't disclose the information within 180 days he could go to jail.

The board of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association, which represents about 200 journalists, issued a statement calling Kinney's decision "a slap at the First Amendment."

<...>

Hosey's articles included information that hadn't been released publicly, prompting attorneys for the defendants to seek a gag order to prevent parties in the case from discussing it or releasing information.

They also filed a motion to determine how Hosey obtained the reports he cited, saying that the disclosure may have violated the defendants' rights to a fair trial.

- more -

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Journalism-Groups-Decry-Ruling-Against-Reporter-224711502.html

The Society of Professional Journalists is mentioned in the article. Here is the organization's position on the federal shield law.

From the President: Contact your senators now!

It’s time to raise the shield. Now! Congress is considering the Free Flow of Information Act — a federal shield law. We need to let our U.S. senators know how important this legislation is for society. You can help! Email or call your two senators (info below), and then let us know that you did. We will update the shield map and continue to spread the word. Act now!

- more -

http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw.asp

[ProSense]

1. Kick!

No comment?

[Downwinder]

2. If it is still around, i'll take the 5th.

[ProSense]

3. It's still around. n/t

[struggle4progress]

4. Subpoena was requested by defense, on grounds release affected fair trial possibilities

[ProSense]

6. That's what the article indicates. n/t

[struggle4progress]

8. Yes. But it's an important point. The crime seems to have been dreadful, and (for all I know)

the defendants may be properly in the dock for it. Still, ensuring that they receive a fair trial, as they are entitled, is a legitimate social interest -- which, unfortunately, here seems to conflict with the interests of various journalists. In such unavoidable conflicts, I can't automatically side with the journalists: only case-by-case consideration, taking into account many particular details, can lead to appropriate balancing of the issues

[ProSense]

9. Yes, it is. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

7. Well that was timely. Raise Shields!

Thanks for the thread, ProSense.

[Igel]

10. The public simply doesn't have a right to know.

I keep hearing this without justification. It has a right to be nosey and and want to pry into personal business and things that don't concern it, but it has no right to succeed.

By the "right to know" justification Anonymous is just being a good journalist collective if it were to publish DUers' credit card information and credit history, and Google has no problem divulging hard disk contents if it scalps your directory information as it drives by looking for hot spots--even if it means hacking your security code to get to it.

It's a case of "I want to know about you, but my privacy is sacred. The more titillating the information about you is, the more I have a right to know it; the more scandalous revealing my information would be, the more sacred it is."

Just make sure that when a journalist actually finds something illegal, even if illegally obtained, that there are legal ways to make sure justice is pursued. After all, that's what the journalists and all claim to want: justice. Instead journalists seem to want fame and fortune (with lots of people agreeing with them) and readers want titillation and outrage. No right to either.