Former USA Today reporter held in contempt (CNN) {Anthrax, Hatfill case}

[eppur_se_muova]

NEW YORK – It’s worth revisiting the status of legislation concerning a shield law to protect confidential sources and information when reporters are subpoenaed to testify in federal proceedings.

The latest case bringing the issue to the forefront has its roots in the fear that gripped the nation back in 2001 when anthrax attacks killed five people. Authorities named former Army scientist Steven Hatfill a “person of interest,” but no charges were filed. Now, Hatfill has a lawsuit pending against the government and a former reporter who followed the case may be headed to jail.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton held Toni Locy, once employed by USA Today, in contempt of court Tuesday for refusing to identify sources for her stories about Hatfill. Locy faces fines of up to $500 each day, escalating to $5,000 a day and possible incarceration.

Hatfill claims the Justice Department violated the federal Privacy Act by giving reporters information about the FBI’s investigation of him and ruined his reputation. He was publicly identified by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002.

While one may be able to sympathize with Hatfill, freedom of press advocates are troubled by the judge’s contempt order. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in a 1972 opinion, “When neither the reporter nor his source can rely on the shield of confidentiality against unrestrained use of the grand jury’s subpoena power, valuable information will not be published and the public dialogue will inevitably be impoverished.”
***
more: http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/

Well, this is threatening to slip under the radar for sure ...

[MaryCeleste]

1. There is no Federal reporters shield law and I don't see one coming in the future

regardless of who is the next president. All governments seem to want to control the media.

Hatfill really has been screwed over by the Feds and the media...whom would you suggest he seek redress against?

[UTUSN]

2. K&R #2 for the travesty of this case not being solved. n/t