• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A journalist who is refusing to divulge her sources could be held in contempt of court

We Never Know

No Slack
Do you think she should be made to give up her source or be held in contempt?
I don't.

A veteran journalist who is refusing to divulge her sources could be held in contempt of court​


"WASHINGTON -- In a case with potentially far-reaching press freedom implications, a federal judge in Washington is weighing whether to hold in contempt a veteran journalist who has refused to identify her sources for stories about a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but never charged.

The judge previously ordered former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge, who now works at CBS, to be interviewed under oath about her sources for a series of stories about Yanping Chen. Chen, who was investigated for years on suspicions she may have lied on immigration forms related to work on a Chinese astronaut program, has since sued the government, saying details about the probe were leaked to damage her reputation.

But after Herridge refused to divulge to Chen’s lawyers how she acquired her information, the scientist’s attorneys are asking U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to hold the reporter in contempt — a sanction that could result in steep monetary fines until she complies.

The long-running lawsuit, now nearing a crucial decision point, represents the collision of competing interests: a journalist’s professional obligation to protect sources and an individual’s right to pursue compensation over perceived privacy violations by the government. It’s being closely watched by media advocates, who say forcing journalists to betray a promise of confidentiality could make sources think twice before providing information to reporters that could expose government wrongdoing.

“Allowing confidential sources to be ordered revealed means that the public will have less information. The more significant the story, the more significant topic, the greater the loss to the public in not knowing the truth about what’s going on,” said longtime First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams. Abrams represented New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail after being held in contempt for refusing to divulge a source in an investigation of leaks about an undercover CIA agent.

It’s not clear when the judge might rule on Chen's request to hold Herridge in contempt.

 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Do you think she should be made to give up her source or be held in contempt?
I don't.

A veteran journalist who is refusing to divulge her sources could be held in contempt of court​


"WASHINGTON -- In a case with potentially far-reaching press freedom implications, a federal judge in Washington is weighing whether to hold in contempt a veteran journalist who has refused to identify her sources for stories about a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but never charged.

The judge previously ordered former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge, who now works at CBS, to be interviewed under oath about her sources for a series of stories about Yanping Chen. Chen, who was investigated for years on suspicions she may have lied on immigration forms related to work on a Chinese astronaut program, has since sued the government, saying details about the probe were leaked to damage her reputation.

But after Herridge refused to divulge to Chen’s lawyers how she acquired her information, the scientist’s attorneys are asking U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to hold the reporter in contempt — a sanction that could result in steep monetary fines until she complies.

The long-running lawsuit, now nearing a crucial decision point, represents the collision of competing interests: a journalist’s professional obligation to protect sources and an individual’s right to pursue compensation over perceived privacy violations by the government. It’s being closely watched by media advocates, who say forcing journalists to betray a promise of confidentiality could make sources think twice before providing information to reporters that could expose government wrongdoing.

“Allowing confidential sources to be ordered revealed means that the public will have less information. The more significant the story, the more significant topic, the greater the loss to the public in not knowing the truth about what’s going on,” said longtime First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams. Abrams represented New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail after being held in contempt for refusing to divulge a source in an investigation of leaks about an undercover CIA agent.

It’s not clear when the judge might rule on Chen's request to hold Herridge in contempt.

These authoritarian judges are completely out of control and have no respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Journalists must NOT be forced to reveal sources.

Another Orwellian step in the wrong direction :(
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Do you think she should be made to give up her source or be held in contempt?
I don't.

A veteran journalist who is refusing to divulge her sources could be held in contempt of court​


"WASHINGTON -- In a case with potentially far-reaching press freedom implications, a federal judge in Washington is weighing whether to hold in contempt a veteran journalist who has refused to identify her sources for stories about a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but never charged.
This is not something new Here is the original ruling back in 1972

Back in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that a journalist had no right to refuse testimony where he or she had witnessed criminal activity. The Court also since held that a journalist who fails to comply with a subpoena can be held in contempt of court and fined or even sent to jail.
 

McBell

Unbound
The long-running lawsuit, now nearing a crucial decision point, represents the collision of competing interests: a journalist’s professional obligation to protect sources and an individual’s right to pursue compensation over perceived privacy violations by the government.
Um...
Would not forcing the journalist to reveal the source in fact give precedent for the source to then sue the government for the exact same thing?
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
This is not something new Here is the original ruling back in 1972

Back in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that a journalist had no right to refuse testimony where he or she had witnessed criminal activity. The Court also since held that a journalist who fails to comply with a subpoena can be held in contempt of court and fined or even sent to jail.
Would that not apply in the OP case unless the journalist is the source?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Would that not apply in the OP case unless the journalist is the source?
The part that applies according to the courts "A journalist who fails to comply with a subpoena can be held in contempt of court and fined or even sent to jail."


Link is a listing of all the Journalist Jailed, Fined or Both since 1972 for not revealing their source.
 
Top