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...
- Guy Writes New James Bond Book... Only Available Where Bond Is In The Public Domain
- Canada Saves Public From Public Domain, Extends Copyright On Sound Recordings Another 20 Years
- Authorities Can't Find Anything To Charge Alleged 'Extremist' With But Still Insist On 24-Hour Monitoring, Computer Restrictions
- Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
- Analysis Shows European Commission's 'Improved' Corporate Sovereignty Model Would Actually Make Things Much Worse