Court Won't Rehear Reporter James Risen's Appeal On Being Compelled To Testify About Sources

from the on-to-the-supreme-court dept

In July, we wrote about a worrisome ruling by an appeals court, that said that NYTimes reporter James Risen could be compelled to give up his sources by putting him on the witness stand in a whistleblower case. Risen is, quite reasonably, arguing that Constitutional protections for a free press should prevent him from having to reveal sources. The appeals court panel had ruled two-to-one against Risen and in favor of the government. Risen asked the entire appeals court to rehear the appeal (a so-called "en banc" rehearing), but the Fourth Circuit appeals court has rejected the request by an overwhelming majority: 13-to-1. The one vote in favor of rehearing the appeal was, not surprisingly, the sole judge who sided with Risen in the original ruling, Roger Gregory. The case isn't over yet, as Risen will almost certainly ask the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. And, given the subject area, one hopes that the Supreme Court will agree to take the case. But, for now, we're left in a world where the government continues to have way too much power over a supposedly free press in their ongoing war against whistleblowers.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    lucidrenegade (profile), Oct 18th, 2013 @ 4:39pm

    13-1? Another great day for the US justice system.

    /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Hidden Force, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 5:47pm

    We Can't Depend on the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly decided against our Constitutional rights over the past several years -- Campaign Finance Reform (First Amendment), Kelo (Fifth Amendment), ObamaCare (Many Amendments) -- so what's to make us believe that the Supreme Court will decide on the side of the citizens in another First Amendment case? Their track record with regard to Constitutionally-protected rights has been pretty dismal as of late.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Atkray (profile), Oct 18th, 2013 @ 6:13pm

      Re: We Can't Depend on the Supreme Court

      No we can't depend on SCOTUS, by as it is the last hope here, we are trying to be optimistic. Thanks for pissing on the candle.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 6:20pm

      Re: We Can't Depend on the Supreme Court

      Campaign Finance Reform (First Amendment)

      Ridiculously easy these days to spot someone who is not a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 6:42pm

    Looks like whistleblowers are the new witches.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 7:45pm

    A Whistleblower is a specific and defined legal status in the US with it's own specific laws, for first of which was adopted in the US in 1863. If you do not fall under that legally defined status, you are not a whistleblower.

    So just calling someone a whistleblower does not make the person you call one !

    Snowden and manning are not whistleblowers as defined by the well established US laws on whistleblowers.

    They might be something else, but whistleblowers they are not.

    And being a journalist does not exempt you from the laws, I hope he does get heard by the supreme court, they will decide the same as the lower courts.

    Journalists are not above the law, thankfully.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      barley blair, Oct 20th, 2013 @ 12:34am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2013 @ 7:45pm

      I agree that Manning mas y have been a whistleblower. But you've no idea what you're talking about when referring to Snowden. He is by every details unction, including within the scope of the latest law as passed in 2012.

      As for the First Amendment, you're viewpoint is your own and, thankfully, not shared by many others. Risen is a thoughtful and mostly responsible professional. His work has been recognised and respected.

      Reread the Bill of Rights someday when you're able and think about the role of a free press which was so respected by the authours that they took pains to specifically enumerate its role in our society--a role for which Yi out seem to have no appreciation.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      barley blair, Oct 20th, 2013 @ 12:34am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2013 @ 7:45pm

      I agree that Manning mas y have been a whistleblower. But you've no idea what you're talking about when referring to Snowden. He is by every details unction, including within the scope of the latest law as passed in 2012.

      As for the First Amendment, you're viewpoint is your own and, thankfully, not shared by many others. Risen is a thoughtful and mostly responsible professional. His work has been recognised and respected.

      Reread the Bill of Rights someday when you're able and think about the role of a free press which was so respected by the authours that they took pains to specifically enumerate its role in our society--a role for which you seem to have no appreciation.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        horse with no name, Oct 21st, 2013 @ 1:43am

        Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2013 @ 7:45pm

        A true whistleblower is trying to direct your attention to a very specific situation and a very specific case. Manning didn't do that, rather he apparently dumped an entire agency worth of information and said "I am sure someone can find something here". It's a data dump for glory, not whistleblowing.

        Even Snowden doesn't really past the test, because he again data dumped an agency hoping people would find specific things. Rather than being outraged by a single case, he just disliked his job and what he felt they were doing, so he dumped it all and hoped it would get some people.

        While the end result appears to be whistling blowing, both cases have significant and untold implications beyond the scope of what would fall under whistleblowing. As an example, Snowdon's little data dump made it so that pretty much every country on the planet can claim the US is snooping on them, and use that as leverage against the US in any negotiation or political situation - even if it's not true or not of any real scope.

        Data dumping is not whistleblowing - whistleblowing tries to right a specific wrong, data dumping is done to piss people off.

        As for the reporter, when you actually witness a crime or worse participate in it, even in passing, then you are no longer protected by privilege. There is a line, and he appears to have crossed it. Just like many anti-piracy cases, if you get the wrong or a poor defendant - or if they are trying to defend a bad point - they can set caselaw for everyone else. Journalist groups would be wise to come down on this guy and tell him to just eat it... taking this to the supreme court would be a slam dunk loss.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Oct 21st, 2013 @ 9:35am

      Re:

      Snowden and manning are not whistleblowers as defined by the well established US laws on whistleblowers.


      I couldn't care less what the law defines as a "whistleblower", especially since those laws were specifically written to ensure that as little actual whistleblowing as possible is covered by them.

      These guys are whistleblowers by any practical definition I can think of.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 7:47pm

    Oh deal, cant handle the arguments again Mr Masnick ??

    what a shame !!!!

    OK, if you have to revert to censorship to stifle free speech, you have to defend yourself somehow..

    If you cant do it through open debate and argument, then do it through censorship..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 19th, 2013 @ 3:46am

    and this is yet another crock of crap that has been adopted by the UK. it's a shame that when there is something good happening that will actually protect the people, as is one of the main functions of a democratic society, they are quickly brushed aside

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfy, Oct 19th, 2013 @ 6:40am

    How long do we have to wait before we get the guns out? A few highly targeted "examples" should do the trick.

    "It wasn't Joe Blow that killed Senator So-and-so, your Honor... it was AMERICA that killed Senator So-and-so">

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 20th, 2013 @ 8:24am

    In no way should a reporter be asked to give up his sources , until we can have 100% trust in our government bodies , and that will not happen even in a perfect world

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This