(RSF/IFEX) – RSF has voiced deep regret at the US Supreme Court’s 27 November 2006 refusal to stay implementation of a federal court ruling requiring the “New York Times” to surrender the phone records of two of its journalists. The organisation reiterated its appeal to Congress to pass a federal shield law that would recognize […]
(RSF/IFEX) – RSF has voiced deep regret at the US Supreme Court’s 27 November 2006 refusal to stay implementation of a federal court ruling requiring the “New York Times” to surrender the phone records of two of its journalists. The organisation reiterated its appeal to Congress to pass a federal shield law that would recognize journalists’ right to protect their sources.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is another setback for the confidentiality of sources,” RSF said. “The courts and the federal government can always use national security as an argument to force journalists to hand over their phone records, although it is hard to see how respect for professional secrecy would threaten US internal security in this case.”
RSF added: “This decision is unfair and dangerous, and we have no illusions about the outcome of the appeal the ‘New York Times’ plans to address to the Supreme Court on the substance of this case. It is therefore vital that the Congress that was elected on 7 November make room on its agenda for a vote on a law giving federal protection for the confidentiality of sources.”
Yesterday’s ruling concerns information obtained by “New York Times” reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon shortly after 11 September 2001 about Islamic charities suspected by the FBI of links with terrorism. After Miller and Shenon learned that the government planned to freeze the charities’ assets and contacted them for a comment, the Justice Department began an investigation to determine the source of the leak.
Citing New York state legislation and the US Constitution’s first amendment, New York judge Robert W. Sweet ruled in favour of the two journalists on 24 February 2005. Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald referred the case to a federal court a year later.
The Manhattan Federal Appeal Court ruled on 1 August of this year that the first amendment does not protect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and ordered the “New York Times” to hand over the phone records to the grand jury investigating the leaks. The newspaper subsequently asked the Supreme Court to stay implementation of the order, finally receiving a rebuff on 27 November.
Miller spent 12 weeks in prison, from 6 July to 29 September 2005, for refusing to name her sources in a separate case (see IFEX alerts of 30 September, 4 August, 7, 6 and 1 July, 28 June 2005 and others). She has since left the “New York Times”.
