(RSF/IFEX) – RSF hopes that the federal court will demonstrate clemency on 17 November 2006, when it makes it ruling about the request for sanctions against “The New York Times”, after one of its reporters, Nicholas Kristof, refused to reveal his sources of information to the court. Kristof and “The New York Times” are being […]
(RSF/IFEX) – RSF hopes that the federal court will demonstrate clemency on 17 November 2006, when it makes it ruling about the request for sanctions against “The New York Times”, after one of its reporters, Nicholas Kristof, refused to reveal his sources of information to the court. Kristof and “The New York Times” are being sued for defamation by a former US Army bioterrorism expert, Stephen J. Hatfill.
“The lawsuit initiated by Stephen J. Hatfill concerns ‘The New York Times’, and does not engage the journalist’s personal liability. Nicholas Kristof therefore cannot be given a jail term, but the ‘professional secret’ issue remains fully unresolved. Were the ‘Times’ sanctioned, this would once again place freedom of the press in jeopardy. We have just asked the new members of Congress to adopt a federal ‘shield law’ that would guarantee journalists the privilege of source confidentiality. What is more, we hope that the federal judge’s decision will be worthy of this critical issue for press freedom,” RSF stated (for further information on RSF’s request that Congress adopt a federal “shield law”, see IFEX alert of 15 November 2006).
On 17 November, a federal district court in Virginia will decide whether Hatfill will be granted his request for sanctions against “The New York Times”. Sanctions would primarily entail the imposition of fines or restrictions on the evidence that “The New York Times” can present. On 2 November, the same court had upheld the first instance decision handed down by a federal magistrate in Virginia 10 days earlier, obliging the journalist to name three of his informants.
Kristof had devoted a series of articles to the anthrax parcel bombs attacks that caused five deaths in 2001. Citing FBI sources, the journalist had mentioned Hatfill, a physician, and a former US Army expert in bioterrorism, as one of the rare people likely to have access to anthrax and to know how to use it. In 2004, the doctor initiated a lawsuit for defamation against the “Times”. The lawsuit was initially dismissed at the newspaper’s request, but Hatfill appealed and won. After being brought before the US Supreme Court, which had refused to make a ruling, the matter finally came back before a federal court this year.
Since the parties’ points of origin are in two different states (New York, for the daily, and Virginia for the plaintiff), the federal court ruled that the laws of the state of Virginia would apply, inasmuch as Hatfill had filed the lawsuit in the latter state. Under the case law of the Supreme Court of Virginia, a journalist benefits from the qualified privilege of source confidentiality but can be legally compelled to name his/her informants in certain cases. It is on the basis of this restriction that the judge has ordered Kristof to reveal his. Two of the three informants gave the journalist permission to divulge their names.
