The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled journalists have no constitutional right to protect confidential sources. Toronto lawyer, James Morton, says although it's not great for journalists, it's not all that surprising. The Court ruled against the National Post in a 10 year old case which deals with a possibly forged document linked to the Shawinigate scandal.
As part of the ruling the Court also decided protection could be extended to sources on a case-by-case basis if a media outlet can prove the public interest in shielding a source or a document.
2 comments:
Possibly forged documents?! Either they were or they weren't.If we do not know then how can a reasonable ruling be made?
Ten years for this.
While I don't entirely disagree with the ruling,how does one protect a source if on a case by case basis they may be dragged into court and forced to defend that same source? I don't think you can in most cases defend the source without mentioning the who what and whys of the information.
Does this lead to publication bans where most journalists and others who are curious enough can find out the name of the so called protected source?
Seems rather strange to me.
BTW James. Are bloggers "journalists"? What about some dude with a Twitter account?
Thanks,
I say bloggers and tweeters are journalists for these purposes
Post a Comment