You may remember the anthrax scare a few years back.  Almost immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist  attacks, the mailed weaponized anthrax envelopes killed five people and made an entire nation even more jittery.

The crime was never solved, but the DNA of the anthrax indicated it was a domestic "inside job" because the anthrax appeared to be similar to the biological weapon produced by the U.S. Army.  Suspicion fell on former Army Chemist Lee Hatfill, who was mercilessly trailed, hounded and investigated.  He was never charged.

He sued and subpoenaed several reporters, including former USA Today reporter Tony Locy in an effort to obtain the names of the federal investigators that leaked his name to the press.  The other reporters' sources released the reporters from any confidentiality pledge and agreed to appear for depositions.  Locy refused to identify her sources and now faces escalating fines of up to $5000 per day.  Those fines cannot be paid by USA Today.  Currently, there is no federal reporter's shield law, but bills have been submitted in Congress to create one.  These will be too late for Locy.

These "reporter's confidentiality" cases present difficult issues.  Generally truth, and access to the truth, is the goal of legal proceedings.  Sometimes it is important that another goal of the legal system be protected-the value of settlement for example.  When necessary to achieve these goals, certain evidence is not admissible-evidence of settlement discussion, for example.  The First amendment goal of freedom of the press is an important goal, but generally, the press is free enough o pursue its own quest for truth that a reporter's shield would be needed only in limited cases.

Posted by Joseph R. McFaul on Sunday, March 09, 2008 at 00:00 Comments Closed (0)

View Weblog Archive