Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Have No Right To Hide Sources
from the freedom-of-the-press dept
While we’re still fighting for a federal press shield law in the US (various states have them, but it’s not universal), the Supreme Court in Canada has ruled that a journalist could be compelled to give up his or her sources if the court thinks it’s worthwhile. The court did say that it really does depend on the circumstances, but if a court decides that it’s of greater public interest to reveal the source, then the court can require it. Of course, there could be some serious unintended consequences that come with such a ruling — including making sources and whistleblowers less willing to come forward, knowing that the journalists they speak to may not be able to protect their anonymity. I don’t know how the Canadian political setup works, but couldn’t this issue be solved with Canada passing a shield law? Hell, they can talk to their counterparts down south who are working on the same thing…
Filed Under: canada, press, shield law
Comments on “Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Have No Right To Hide Sources”
“but if a court decides that it’s of greater public interest”
Well, at least in the U.S. the courts seem to almost always decide that it’s in the greater public interest to grant warrants and they almost never turn down a warrant.
I don’t think a court is really capable of making these decisions, I think that we should increase the consensus factor required to either grant a warrant or break journalistic anonymity. Have a jury of like 12 people decide and require at least a 3/4 majority in agreement of either granting a warrant or revealing a journalists sources. Or, if a 3/4 majority isn’t sufficient, require a unanimous 12/12 majority.
“Hell, they can talk to their counterparts down south who are working on the same thing…”
You mean like how they’re talking to their counterparts down south about intellectual property law?
canadian law isnt a series of bizarre absolutes like the us constitution. the interest of the people is balanced against the interests of the individual without having to have such black and white restrictions.
Re: Re:
Like how filesharing isn’t stealing in Canada.
Re: Re: Re:
Filesharing isn’t stealing anywhere.
In Canada:
Downloading is ok.
Uploading could be infringement, depending on the file.
Re: Re:
That’s true. Plus the concept of “public good/interest” in Canadian law is quite more powerful that what can seem at first glance. It gives the courts the near absolute power that the “eminent domain” concept in US law has but covers ALL facets of life, not just the roads and land.
the old way
Wasn’t the old way of doing this simply refusing to provide your source, and taking whatever punishment came?
Sounds like the whistleblowers and journalists need to stop giving each other contact info. Or at least only the minimal amount of info, “Bob from Foo Corp”, or “Mr S. From Bar LLC” as the max amount of info.
Re: Re:
And miss out on their 15 minutes of fame? Pshaw…
Epic freedom of press fail.
Kind of a massive contrast to how it’s here in Sweden where it is 100% illegal for anyone from any level of government to even ask journalist about his or her sources.
It’s called democracy.
Re: Epic freedom of press fail.
Yes, but in sweden it’s not for the public good, it’s for the public bad 🙂
Of course that’s not true, and the public is probably much better off in Sweden because of the laws that you have.
Re: Epic freedom of press fail.
Yeah, and Sweden is a safe harbor for terrorists 🙂
Public good? Perhaps...
There’s another point that is mentioned in the article. And that is that the papers in question have been called forgeries. One can argue that it really is for the public good to determine whether or not the documents are genuine. The source though is another matter. If the papers are not fake then the identity of the source really should remain secret. But I guess the courts decided not to make that distinction.
While I agree with the overall concept of the point Mike is making about press shields, I disagree with some of his sub-points severely. The one I hold most distaste with is the one about how we ask the Americans about how to write our laws.
Hell, they can talk to their counterparts down south who are working on the same thing…
There has been quite enough “talking to our counterparts down south” and not enough “listening to our citizens.” We are a sovereign country and can make our own laws. Thank you very much. I think the bigger issue here is courts trying to make laws, an area which by definition is out of their jurisdiction. Just another “lets follow the americans” attempt.
Have =
Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Have No Right To Hide Sources
I have
—
He/She/It has
We have
You have
They have
Thus it should be:
Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Has No Right To Hide Sources
Canadian sheild law unlikely
As much as, most of the time, I’d love to see one, the way the Canadian constitution is formed, in both its written and unwritten portions, it’s not likely a blanket shield law would pass muster.
It should be noted that the Supreme Count was very careful in its ruling to point out that these things are to be decided on a case by case basis and that there was a powerful dissenting opinion which leaves it open for changes later on.
As has been noted the Court has to take the “public interest” into account in these rulings and the fact that the document in question is alleged to be a forgery is likely what tipped the scales.
Constitutionally is the requirement that the Court do nothing that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute which a blanket ruling in either direction would likely have done.
While we can learn from our neighbours to the south, and I say that without the knee jerk response of some of my “nationalist” compatriots who have the same reaction to every suggestion that we can do that, in this case we have to recognize the different constitutional settings in which the courts and lawmakers attempt to deal with the status of sources for journalists.
ttfn
John