Canadian Appeals Court Says Vice Media Must Turn Over Communications With Source To Law Enforcement
from the putting-the-scare-quotes-back-in-'free'-press dept
Roughly a year ago, a Canadian court ruled that Vice Media must turn over conversations one of its journalists had with an alleged terrorist to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The ruling created a chilling effect, carving a hole in journalistic protections in favor of national security concerns. Not only would it deter journalists from speaking to sources who might, at some point in the future, face criminal charges, but it also would deter sources from speaking to journalists for fear their cover might be blown by law enforcement court orders.
Vice appealed the decision. Unfortunately, there’s no better news awaiting them at the Ontario Court of Appeals. Elizabeth Raymer of Legal Feeds reports the higher court has upheld the previous ruling.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld a production order requiring a journalist to hand over all his communications with a man charged with terrorism-related offences. Journalist and civil liberties organizations have called the decision a blow to reporters abilities to protect their sources and publish stories in the public interest.
The Appeals Court weighed the competing issues — journalistic protections vs. law enforcement needs — and decided it was a toss-up.
“A free and vigorous press is essential to the proper functioning of a democracy,” Justice David Doherty of the Ontario appellate court acknowledged at the start of his judgment.
“The protection of society from serious criminal activity is equally important to the maintenance of a functioning democracy. Those fundamental societal concerns can come into conflict. When they do, it falls to the court to resolve those conflicts. In this case, claims based on the freedom of the press and those based on effective law enforcement collide at two points.”
But in the event of a tie, the win goes to law enforcement apparently. From the decision [PDF]:
After a careful consideration of the entirety of the record before him, the application judge concluded, at para. 47:
I am satisfied that the ITO set forth a basis upon which, after taking into account the special position of the media, the authorizing justice could have determined that the balance between the interests of law enforcement and the media’s right to freedom of expression favoured making the production order.
The reasons of the application judge reveal no misapprehension of the evidence, no failure to consider factors relevant to his assessment, or any other form of extractable legal error. It was reasonable, on this record, to find the balancing of the competing interests favoured making the production order.
Vice’s attempt to quash the production order has been denied. Barring an appeal to the Supreme Court, the RCMP will get their man[‘s communications]… and encroach a bit further on press protections.
Filed Under: canada, free press, free speech, sources, terrorism
Companies: vice
Comments on “Canadian Appeals Court Says Vice Media Must Turn Over Communications With Source To Law Enforcement”
And yet another turn of the screw towards totalitarian police states, where nothing and no one is more important than losing more freedom and privacy under the lies of ‘protecting against terrorism and pedophiles’!
Only in Canada do we screw the right of journalists. Oh and the world should be paying attention, this is coming to a country near you soon.
Re: Re:
Not in the US… Not in Russia… Not in China… Not in Argentina… Not in Turkey… Not in Egypt… Not in Iran…
C’mon.
Does Vice still have it
Serious question. Does Vice media still have those communications? If they turn anything over, they can consider themselves done in comparison to other organizations. Plus, the whole journalistic ethics thing.
Given all that, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve already destroyed everything.
Re: Does Vice still have it
Contempt of court charge for destroying relevant documents, versus never having a confidential source come to them again.
Yeah, that’s actually a good question there.
If we just gloss over freedom of expression and sensible and necessary journalistic rights, we can look at this pragmatically from the government’s point of view.
Why the hell do you blow your shot at having the press reveal things over one lousy case? Something you probably didn’t even know about until someone reported on it. Idiots! Do your damn investigative work. Your authoritarian streak to simply compel everything or walk away is showing again.
There is a 3rd option
1) Appeal to the Supreme Court, or 2) hand over confidential communications. The 3rd choice is the hard one journalists are supposed to take. Go to jail rather than betray a source.
They should try #1 appeal. Should that fail, take the contempt charge. It’s embarrassing for free governments to jail members of the press. Regardless, it’s the right choice for a journalist – keep their word to their source.
The court should make the RMCP produce a report about what was gained from winning this stupid case.
The court should then bludgeon the RCMP with it repeatedly.
This strikes me as the same sort of thinking behind the ZOMG make Apple unlock the phone, because it might contain cyberbombs to kill us allllll!!!!!!!! Oh wait, there was nothing useful…. but we paid a pretty penny to learn that.
“The protection of society from serious criminal activity is equally important to the maintenance of a functioning democracy.”
No it is not. Because the definition of crime seems to shift at the whims of the current Government. Ensuring everybody has their rights protected before talking about crime is what is important to the maintenance of a functioning democracy.
It’s no surprise there are very, very few functioning democracies today. And Canada isn’t one of them.