by Mike Masnick
Mon, May 10th 2010 6:38pm
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...
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Eli Lilly Loses Quixotic Quest To Get Canada To Pay $500 Million For Rejecting Its Bad Patents
- Canada Says It Won't Attend Special 301 Hearing Because USTR Prefers Industry Allegations To Facts And Data
- Canada-EU Trade Deal Ratified By European Union; Now Needs Approval By All Member States' National Parliaments
- PayPal Kills Canadian Paper's Submission To Media Awards Because Article Had Word 'Syrian' In The Title
- Landmark Court Decision Means Canada Has Now Joined The 'Right To Be Forgotten Globally' Club