Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know the law on this, but I think the First Amendment should protect his sources. We want people to go to the press.
|
Should, and does --- to an extent. Assuming for the moment that the District lacks a Reporter's Shield Law such as that in effect in California*, Novak can rely on
Branzburg v. Hayes for the proposition that the media's ability to amass information in the public's interest should be weighed against the prosecution's interest in disclosure. In furtherance of this constitutional policy, 28 C.F.R. 50.10 permits subpoenas to news agencies only with the permission of the Attorney General, and only under specific guidelines. It's just a policy statement, but the First Amendment "privilege" is not entirely baseless --- it's just very weak in comparison to real privileges.
*One of the strongest in the nation --- absolute immunity from contempt in civil cases, and qualified immunity in criminal cases (i.e., disclosure compelled only where showing made that the reporter has potentially exculpatory evidence implicating the defendant's 6th Amendment rights).
