South Dakota's Shield Laws
Many journalist's, especially in this day and age, have come under tremendous scrutiny simply for attempting to do their jobs. However, the legislature of South Dakota is taking measures to make sure that reporters will still have their right to free press without coming under fire from everyone else. Many reporters have an ongoing issue dealing with reporter's privilege, which is a reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources.
In early February, South Dakota's House of Representatives voted in favor of HB 1074, which, according to freemansd.com, 'would block courts, the Legislature and other public bodies in South Dakota from holding in contempt journalists who assert the privilege. It would also make information obtained in violation of the law inadmissible in legal proceedings. It’s a measure that should become law." It should also be noted that South Dakota is not the only state to implement an act such as this. Thirty-nine other states already passed similar acts well before South Dakota jumped on the bandwagon.
Gov. Kristi Noem has been pushing for a shield law that covers reporters for quite some time, especially with the rise of absolute hate that many reporters are receiving throughout the state. In August of 2018, Noem paid a visit to the South Dakota Newspaper Association and spoke with their representatives, pushing wholeheartedly for a shield law based, solely, for the purpose of protecting reporter's privilege.
A media law professor, Johnathon Peters, was asked to give a reasonable explanation behind why this is such a critical issue. This is his response, which was published in the Columbia Journalism Report: "Generally, any person who is asked or ordered to testify (or produce documents) at a legal proceeding is required to comply. If the person doesn’t, she’s subject to a contempt finding, which means a judge could put the person in jail, or fine her, or both. The penalty’s chief purpose is not to punish—it’s to extract compliance.
However, there are exceptions called privileges. The most famous is the attorney-client privilege that exempts an attorney from testifying against a client about confidential communications. Many states recognize similar privileges for medical doctors, therapists, religious advisors, and spouses. They all stem from the belief that there’s a public interest that justifies the exclusion of testimony by certain people against others.
Journalists have argued that they should have a privilege for roughly analogous reasons. They rely on sources to provide the news they publish, and those sources might not share sensitive or critical information in the absence of anonymity—out of fear that they’ll be punished for sharing it. ... There’s a public interest in encouraging the disclosure of newsworthy information.
If journalists are, or are seen as, investigative arms of the government or private interests, then the public might lose faith in their reporting and be loath to trust them with information."
In early February, South Dakota's House of Representatives voted in favor of HB 1074, which, according to freemansd.com, 'would block courts, the Legislature and other public bodies in South Dakota from holding in contempt journalists who assert the privilege. It would also make information obtained in violation of the law inadmissible in legal proceedings. It’s a measure that should become law." It should also be noted that South Dakota is not the only state to implement an act such as this. Thirty-nine other states already passed similar acts well before South Dakota jumped on the bandwagon.
Gov. Kristi Noem has been pushing for a shield law that covers reporters for quite some time, especially with the rise of absolute hate that many reporters are receiving throughout the state. In August of 2018, Noem paid a visit to the South Dakota Newspaper Association and spoke with their representatives, pushing wholeheartedly for a shield law based, solely, for the purpose of protecting reporter's privilege.
A media law professor, Johnathon Peters, was asked to give a reasonable explanation behind why this is such a critical issue. This is his response, which was published in the Columbia Journalism Report: "Generally, any person who is asked or ordered to testify (or produce documents) at a legal proceeding is required to comply. If the person doesn’t, she’s subject to a contempt finding, which means a judge could put the person in jail, or fine her, or both. The penalty’s chief purpose is not to punish—it’s to extract compliance.
However, there are exceptions called privileges. The most famous is the attorney-client privilege that exempts an attorney from testifying against a client about confidential communications. Many states recognize similar privileges for medical doctors, therapists, religious advisors, and spouses. They all stem from the belief that there’s a public interest that justifies the exclusion of testimony by certain people against others.
Journalists have argued that they should have a privilege for roughly analogous reasons. They rely on sources to provide the news they publish, and those sources might not share sensitive or critical information in the absence of anonymity—out of fear that they’ll be punished for sharing it. ... There’s a public interest in encouraging the disclosure of newsworthy information.
If journalists are, or are seen as, investigative arms of the government or private interests, then the public might lose faith in their reporting and be loath to trust them with information."
No comments:
Post a Comment