In 2301 we covered shield laws, which are laws that give "reporters some means of protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court." These laws recognize that a principle role of the press is to shine a spotlight - for the benefit of consumers - on activities that otherwise would not be covered. This creates a dilemma. Sometimes a report might focus on illegal activity, which prosecutors might wish to investigate, and we might as a society wish to be investigated. But we would not have been aware of the activity had the reporter not been able to guarantee confidentiality to his or her sources.
So the right to information (which of course is not clearly stated anywhere in the Constitution, just inferred as being part of the freedom of the press) can come into conflict with the responsibilities of the executive branch - law enforcement - to enforce the laws passed by the legislature. This is a great example of the balances that have to be struck between the competing needs of society - in this case the need to be informed versus the need to be protected from criminal activity.
Journalists, by being members of the press, are the agents that dig up and distribute information about societal issues, serve a privileged function since they provide information for us to chew on, but a recent case in Montana points out a consequence of technological change. Remember that journalists have a privileged status because they are members of "the press" people in a position to distribute information - but since most people own computers, or other devises that send out information, we can all be journalists in a sense.
Or can we?
In the case, a woman who calls herself an "investigative blogger" and has blogged repeatedly and negatively about a financial firm she is upset with, has lost a libel suit. The court ruled that Montana's shield laws did not apply to her. She is not a journalist.
Expect an appeal to the Supreme Court. As with the GPS case we discussed over the fall, the Supreme Court continues to wrestle with the impact our hyper communicative, digital environment has on the application of Constitutional principles.
- Montana Shield Law Protects Anonymous Commenters.
- Federal judge: Montana blogger is not journalist.
