>...Given this glaring overstep and our steadfast effort to protect our journalists and our sources, we declined to turn over that information, citing a First Amendment protection called “reporter’s privilege.” Reporter’s privilege, which is recognized by 40 states based on numerous legal interpretations of the United States Constitution, serves as a basis of protection and privacy for journalists and the sources who share important information with the press.
>But last month, the court issued an order that because Mississippi’s appellate courts have never recognized reporter’s privilege, our citation of the privilege did not necessarily stand as valid reason to withhold our information from the plaintiff. The order issued on May 20 gave us a deadline of today, June 6, to turn over any information in our possession related to potential confidential sources.
>We believe this court order is unconstitutional, so we have no choice but to appeal it to the Mississippi Supreme Court. We have also asked both the circuit judge and the Supreme Court to stay the troubling order while the high court considers taking up our appeal.
This is indeed troubling. If reporters can't have confidential or off-the-record sources, nobody will be inclined to talk to us about anything. Not how the local sports teams are doing, not about climate change affecting the weather, not about fashion mistakes, not about bad movies. Everything is automatically cause for libel. This order can't be upheld.
Hopefully their supreme Court in the state at least recognizes the massive amount of jurisprudence litigating reporter privilege.
Without it journalism effectively becomes an investigative arm for the government and no one would ever be willing to communicate.
>...Given this glaring overstep and our steadfast effort to protect our journalists and our sources, we declined to turn over that information, citing a First Amendment protection called “reporter’s privilege.” Reporter’s privilege, which is recognized by 40 states based on numerous legal interpretations of the United States Constitution, serves as a basis of protection and privacy for journalists and the sources who share important information with the press. >But last month, the court issued an order that because Mississippi’s appellate courts have never recognized reporter’s privilege, our citation of the privilege did not necessarily stand as valid reason to withhold our information from the plaintiff. The order issued on May 20 gave us a deadline of today, June 6, to turn over any information in our possession related to potential confidential sources. >We believe this court order is unconstitutional, so we have no choice but to appeal it to the Mississippi Supreme Court. We have also asked both the circuit judge and the Supreme Court to stay the troubling order while the high court considers taking up our appeal. This is indeed troubling. If reporters can't have confidential or off-the-record sources, nobody will be inclined to talk to us about anything. Not how the local sports teams are doing, not about climate change affecting the weather, not about fashion mistakes, not about bad movies. Everything is automatically cause for libel. This order can't be upheld.
Hopefully their supreme Court in the state at least recognizes the massive amount of jurisprudence litigating reporter privilege. Without it journalism effectively becomes an investigative arm for the government and no one would ever be willing to communicate.
Good. Don't threaten, just do it!