Shield Laws

Practical Tips for Protecting Your Sources and Source Material

When you gather and publish information, it may be important to you to protect the confidentiality of your sources or source material. You may not wish for your sources' identities to be revealed, and you may not want all of the information you have gathered to be public. Here are some practical tips for you to consider when seeking to protect your newsgathering information:

Jones v. WorldNetDaily

Date: 

04/01/2001

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.; Charles C. Thompson II; Tony Hays; Center for Public Integrity; Ron Shank; Savannah Journal; Larry Brinton; Landmark Television of Tennessee/News Channel 5 Network; Charlotte Alexander; Decatur County Chronicle, L.L.C.; Rebec

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of Hardin County, Tennessee; Tennessee Court of Appeals; Tennessee Supreme Court

Case Number: 

No. 3414 (trial court)

Legal Counsel: 

Larry Parrish (WND); Sam Cole (Thompson and Hays)

Publication Medium: 

Broadcast
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Tennessee businessman Clark Jones sued WorldNetDaily.com, a socially conservative news and opinion website, and freelance reporters Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays for defamation in Tennessee state court, after WorldNetDaily.com published an article written by Thompson and Hays claiming that Jones had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been the subject of a law enforcement investigation into illegal drug trafficking, and was or had been involved in other criminal activities.  2d Am. Cmplt. ¶ 18.  Clark also sued the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson and Hays' reporting on the article and related investigative pieces, as well as other publications and broadcasters who repeated the claims made in the article.

During the course of the litigation, a Tennessee appeals court held that WorldNetDaily.com could not rely on statements of anonymous sources to make out its defense of truth without revealing the identity of those sources.  The Tennessee Supreme Court refused to hear the issue because WorldNetDaily.com did not take a proper appeal.

The parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum in 2008.  As part of the settlement, the parties issued a joint statement, which said in relevant part:

Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been discovered that provides any verification that the statements written were true.

Factual discovery in the litigation and response from Freedom of Information Act requests to law enforcement agencies confirm Clark Jones' assertion that his name has never been on law enforcement computers, that he has not been the subject of any criminal investigation nor has he interfered with any investigation as stated in the articles. Discovery has also revealed that the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context.

WorldNetDaily.com and its editors never intended any harm to Clark Jones and regret whatever harm occurred. WorldNetDaily.com has no verified information by which to question Mr. Jones' honesty and integrity, and having met him, has no claim or reason to question his honesty and integrity. WorldNetDaily.com wishes him well. (source)

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Worth noting that this is a case in which the court had said that WorldDailyNet could not use the statements of anonymous sources as part of a truth defense -- or, basically, that WDN would need to identify their sources if they wanted to present a truth defense. {MCS}

Priority: 

1-High

Highlights from the Legal Guide: Choosing a Business Form

This is the first in a series of posts calling attention to some of the topics covered in the recently launched Citizen Media Law Project Legal Guide. The first topic we'll take up is choosing a business form for online publishing activities. There is increasing awareness that, especially if you publish content in collaboration with others, it may not be smart to simply leave the relationship "natural" or informal.

Subject Area: 

Responding to Subpoenas

You've received a document that might be a subpoena. Your immediate reaction may be shock and a desire to immediately obey its request. As with anything legal, it's best not to act on impulse but to carefully consider the options before you. While you will likely need to comply, there are times when a court will agree to modify the subpoena's request or even to terminate it entirely. This guide cannot give you legal advice about your situation and you should contact a lawyer for specific legal advice.

Reconstructing the Journalists' Privilege

Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University School of Law, has an article entitled "Reconstructing Journalists' Privilege" coming out in the Cardozo Law Review. The article is part of a symposium issue that includes pieces by an impressive list of scholars, including Anthony Lewis, Max Frankel, Victor Kovner, Joel Gora, and Rodney Smolla.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Citizen Media Law Podcast #1: Federal Shield Bill; Co-Blogging and Legal Threats; Phoenix New Times Arrests

Welcome to the first episode of the Citizen Media Law Podcast, providing practical knowledge and tools for citizen journalists. This week, David Ardia responds to the federal shield bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, Colin Rhinesmith talks about legal threats to co-bloggers, and Sam Bayard reflects on the Phoenix New Times arrests.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

U.S. House Overwhelmingly Passes Federal Shield Bill, Changes Definition of Who is Covered

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed -- for the first time ever -- a federal shield bill by a vote of 398 to 21. This follows on the heels of the Senate Judiciary Committee's passage of a similar bill on October 4. The House version, however, makes a critical change in the language regarding who is entitled to the bill's qualified protections by excluding those who do not receive "substantial financial gain" for their activities.

Under the House version, H.R. 2102, a "covered person" is defined as

a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

I've highlighted the new language in the quote above, which came about as the result of a last minute amendment by Representatives Boucher and Pence, two cosponsors of the original bill that did not include this ill-conceived requirement. In contrast, the original version of the House bill extended its coverage to any person "engaged in journalism," including "a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person."

This change significantly narrows the bill's coverage and is plainly aimed to exclude non-traditional journalists. But it doesn't just exclude those whom some in Congress derisively call "bloggers." The new definition would likely exclude many freelance journalists who must rely on other work to supplement their incomes. Do we really want judges to be deciding whether a journalist is earning enough money to qualify for protection?

More to the point, is financial remuneration the criterion we want to be using when we draw the line between those who are entitled to engage in journalism under the protection of a federal shield law and those who must venture forth unprotected? It seems to me the answer is no. To limit the privilege only to journalists who receive "substantial financial gain" misses the point of how media and journalism are evolving. Most crucially, it misses the growing -- and essential -- role of citizen media creators. They are the closest analog since the nation's founding to the Tom Paine-style pamphleteers the First Amendment was designed, in part, to encourage.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Senate Judiciary Committee Endorses Federal Shield Bill

The United States Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to endorse a bill that would give journalists a qualified privilege from having to testify in court about their confidential sources and to disclose their news gathering materials. In a 15-2 vote, the committee sent the legislation, S. 2035, to the full Senate, where it is expected to face stiff opposition from Republican senators and the Bush administration. Presiding over the committee session, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) remarked:

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Apple v. Does

Date: 

12/13/2004

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

Apple Computer, Inc.

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Does

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

California Superior Court, Santa Clara County

Case Number: 

1-04-CV-032178

Legal Counsel: 

Kurt B. Opsahl, Kevin S. Bankston - Electronic Frontier Foundation, Thomas E. Moore III - Tomlinson Zisko LLP, Richard R. Wiebe - Law Office of Richard R. Wiebe

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Subpoena Quashed
Withdrawn

Description: 

On December 13, 2004, Apple filed suit against unknown defendants for misappropriation and publication of trade secrets in connection with reports about its "Asteroid" product (a FireWire audio interface for Apple's GarageBand) that appeared on Apple-related news sites, PowerPage, AppleInsider, and ThinkSecret. Apple sought and obtained permission to issue subpoenas to PowerPage, AppleInsider, ThinkSecret, and PowerPage's email service provider, Nfox.com and Karl Kraft, requesting documents relating to the identity of the news site's confidential sources.

On February 14, 2005, Jason O'Grady (from PowerPage), Monish Bhatia (hosting service provider for AppleInsider), and "Kasper Jade" (AppleInsider) moved for a protective order to prevent the discovery sought by Apple on grounds that their sources and unpublished information were protected under the reporter's shield embodied in Article I, section 2(b) of the California Constitution and California Evidence Code 1070 and the reporter's privilege under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. they also argued that the subpoenas issued against Nfox and Kraft could not be enforced without violating the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. sec. 2702(a)(1)).

The state district court denied defendants' motion to quash the subpoenas. In O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), the Court of Appeals quashed the subpoenas, holding that the federal Stored Communications Act barred enforcement of the subpoena served on PowerPage's email service provider, and that discovery of unpublished information or confidential sources from the news sites would violate California's reporter's shield provision and the First Amendment.

Apple announced that it would not appeal the ruling, and voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit in January 2007.

This case is related to Apple Computer, Inc. v. DePlume, No. 1-05-CV-33341 (Cal. Super. Ct. Jan. 04, 2005). Please see CMLP's database entry for more information on the status of that lawsuit.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

from a review of the O'Grady opinion, it looks like there was a threatening letter or two sent by Apple in this case -- to-do: see if this is true and create entry(ies) for letter(s).

Revised Federal Shield Bill Clears the House Judiciary Committee

The U.S. House of Representatives has taken an important step forward on the federal shield bill (H.R.2102), which we've discussed in greater detail before. The proposed legislation would protect those "engaging in journalism" from having to testify about or produce documents relating to their work, and from revealing their anonymous sources, except under specified circumstances. Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee approved an amended version of the bill after two hours of debate, sending it to the House floor for consideration.

The amended bill is not currently available online, but reports (here, here and here) indicate that the new version extends protection to bloggers as long as they derive "financial gain or livelihood" from their journalistic activity. Some in Washington are unhappy because this definition of journalistic activity is too broad, complaining that the "financial gain or livelihood" standard opens the door to anyone whose blog or websites raises even a small amount of revenue through ads. Conversely, some online sources are trumpeting the amended version as a victory for bloggers, with headlines like "House panel approves legal shield for bloggers" and "US law to protect bloggers."

Both sides miss the (fairly) obvious point that the the recent revision narrowed the scope of journalistic activity protected by the law. Don't get me wrong. The revised legislation seems like a good start, and the "financial gain or livelihood" standard may well be broad enough to drive a truck through, providing plenty of room for enterprising bloggers. But the revised bill does potentially (and arbitrarily) exclude those citizen journalists who choose not to have ads or other marketing tools on their sites. We'll reserve judgment for now, monitor the bill closely, and follow up when a copy of the revised bill is available.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Testimony on Shield Bill in Massachusetts

Yesterday our very own Mary-Rose Papandrea, a professor at Boston College Law School, testified before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary at the Massachusetts State House regarding a proposed shield law. For most of the hearing, the questions focused on the scope of the privilege (the bill proposes an absolute privilege for the identity of sources and a qualified privilege for newsgathering materials) and not on who would be covered under the privilege.

However, near the end of the hearing, Senator Robert Creedon expressed concern about extending the privilege to bloggers, describing them as "loose cannons." Papandrea, together with Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, responded that the term "bloggers" is ill-defined and includes many journalists from the mainstream media. Given that it would be unwise to place internet communications outside the scope of any shield law, Papandrea and Dalglish argued that the better answer would be to define those covered under the law by their function - i.e., whether they are disseminating information to the general public. Papandrea also pointed out that the proposed shield law would not immunize bloggers - or anyone else - from libel suits, which appeared to be Senator Creedon's primary concern.

You can track the status of the Massachusetts "Free Flow of Information Act" at OpenMass.gov.

UPDATE: Robert Ambrogi has posted a detailed report on what happened at the hearing.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Shield Legislation Pending in Massachusetts

Shield legislation pending in Massachusetts would likely provide a qualified privilege to citizen journalists.  Subject to certain exceptions, the bill provides a qualified privilege to "any covered person, who is providing or has provided services for the news media."

It appears that the bill's protections would extend to citizen journalists.  According to the bill, a "covered person" is defined as

a person who engages in the gathering of news information and has the intent, at the beginning of the process of gathering news or information, to disseminate such news or information to the public.

Whereas "news media" is defined as

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Shield Bill Dies in Texas

Last week I noted that the Texas Senate had approved the "Free Flow of Information Act" and sent the bill to the Texas House of Representatives.  Well, that was short lived, as the bill has now died in the Texas House.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the bill

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Shield Bill Moving Forward in Texas

It must be Texas day, with two posts relating to the Lone Star State. 

The Texas Senate approved the "Free Flow of Information Act" on May 1 in a 27-4 vote and sent the bill to the Texas House of Representatives.  The bill would give "journalists" a qualified privilege to protect both their sources and their newsgathering materials.  Under the current language of the bill, a journalists is defined as follows:

"Journalist" means a person who for financial gain, for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood, or for subscription purposes gathers, compiles, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, processes, or publishes news or information that is disseminated by a news medium or communication service provider and includes:

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Federal Shield Bill: Don't Go Dancing in the Streets Just Yet

In announcing the introduction of shield legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives on May 2, 2007, Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) commented:

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Shield Laws