NH Supreme Court Hears Case On Protections For Anonymous Sources Online

fulldecent writes "The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that calls into question the legal protections available to independent Web sites that cover news. The case involves mortgage lender Implode-Explode, a Las Vegas-based site launched in 2007 that publishes stories about the meltdown of the mortgage industry. Associate Justice Carol Ann Conboy pressed the point with [defense lawyer Jeremy Eggleton], questioning, 'Can anyone who posts a blog be considered a reporter,' for the purposes of claiming protection of anonymous sources? Eggleton answered yes, within limits: 'The test is whether the person has an intention to gather, analyze and disseminate.'"

Comments

Begging the question

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You don't need to be a "reporter" to protect your sources. The attempt to pigeonhole a specific right to a specific type of profession is exactly the kind of intellectual manipulation that is going on in this country, and I'm sad to see it happening in the judiciary.

Take for example the idea that we need extra security for air travel. We argue about the limits of search and seizure, but we never argue whether such search and seizure is actually necessary.

Why should only reporters be allowed to conceal their sources? Why should only priests, lawyers, and doctors be able to keep client information secret? These assume that there is a special need for this kind of protection above and beyond what a normal citizen would need.

Well fuck that. I'd like to think we're all equal in the eyes of the law, no matter what our profession is.

Re:Begging the question

[KiahZero]

Under federal law, reporters aren't given special rights to protect their sources. Reporters (somewhat infrequently) have to go to jail to protect their sources, as Judith Miller did during the Plame-leak investigation. New Hampshire's Supreme Court appears to have previously ruled that the state constitution provides some level of privilege, arguing that "[o]ur constitution quite consciously ties a free press to a free state, for effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people have access to an unimpeded and uncensored flow of reporting. News gathering is an integral part of the process."

As for your second question, the reason priests, lawyers, and doctors are permitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence (and, as far as I'm aware, state evidence law), is because of the special relationships these professions have with their clients. Independent judgments have been made, over the years, that forcing these specific categories of people to reveal their confidences learned in the course of their job would be harmful to society. A similar rationale is used for the other type of privilege you left off the list - spousal.

Of course, as I write this, I see your name is "BadAnalogyGuy," so perhaps you were simply being true to your name rather than making a sincere argument.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[bsane]

Newspapers and other media have an agenda too, whether it be political bias, or the desire to make more money. Most (all?) have comprised their reporting, and continue to do so on a regular basis. Traditional press isn't some holy box of pure information- its in the same ballpark as the bloggers, except with a lot of money behind them.

I agree that it would seem to be more difficult to determine truth when there are 1000 random voices vs 5 established ones telling you 'the way it is'. Its always been up to you to figure out the real story from all the slanted reports, now there are just a lot more of them.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[crazyjimmy]

IMHO, this is dangerous. These days, if people see it on the internet, it's true until proven false. Of course in many newspapers that's also the case but it's much easier to come down on them like a ton of bricks and get people fired for spreading lies. Not so with a blogger. They aren't employed by a company generally who can reprimand them for not fact-checking and even if you get a court order to shut them down they'll just move the content to a different place.

You know, back when the Bill of Rights was written, ANY idiot with a printing press could declare themselves to be a reporter, and post news. The truthiness of the news was not the issue, nor was the individual reporter's goals and motivations. The issue was the government shutting down people who said things they didn't like.

I don't see how bloggers are all that different.

--Jimmy