abhishreshthaa
Abhijeet S
Shield Law for Journalists
Definition
A shield law for a journalist is a law that protects him/her from revealing the sources of information quoted in a news story. It means that even in cases when the judge summons the journalist and demands for information on the sources, the journalist can refuse to reveal any information under the defence of protecting the source.
E.g.: Give the Dutch example again.
The law arises from the basic need of a journalist to protect his/her sources. These needs might vary from endangering the job of a source to danger to life to mere breach of trust.
In India
In India, the journalists do not enjoy any such rights of protecting and shielding one’s sources. In cases where the national security or any other issue of public interest is concerned, the journalist is expected to reveal his/her sources. However, the judges are aware of the dilemma that the journalists face and hence do not force the journalists to reveal their sources. No such cases have happened yet.
In the U.S.
The first amendment to the Constitution grants the journalists in the United States of America the right to protect their sources. However, the laws vary from state to state.
E.g.: The issue of whether or not journalists can be subpoenaed and forced to reveal confidential information arose in 1972 with the United States Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes. Paul Branzburg was a reporter for The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky and wrote an article about the drug hashish. In creating the article, he came in contact with two local citizens who had created and used the drug. Because their activity was illegal, Branzburg promised the two individuals that he would not reveal their identities.
After the article was published, Branzburg was subpoenaed by a local grand jury and ordered to reveal the identity of his sources. Branzburg refused and cited the provisions for freedom of the press from the First Amendment of the Constitution, in his defence.
Definition
A shield law for a journalist is a law that protects him/her from revealing the sources of information quoted in a news story. It means that even in cases when the judge summons the journalist and demands for information on the sources, the journalist can refuse to reveal any information under the defence of protecting the source.
E.g.: Give the Dutch example again.
The law arises from the basic need of a journalist to protect his/her sources. These needs might vary from endangering the job of a source to danger to life to mere breach of trust.
In India
In India, the journalists do not enjoy any such rights of protecting and shielding one’s sources. In cases where the national security or any other issue of public interest is concerned, the journalist is expected to reveal his/her sources. However, the judges are aware of the dilemma that the journalists face and hence do not force the journalists to reveal their sources. No such cases have happened yet.
In the U.S.
The first amendment to the Constitution grants the journalists in the United States of America the right to protect their sources. However, the laws vary from state to state.
E.g.: The issue of whether or not journalists can be subpoenaed and forced to reveal confidential information arose in 1972 with the United States Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes. Paul Branzburg was a reporter for The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky and wrote an article about the drug hashish. In creating the article, he came in contact with two local citizens who had created and used the drug. Because their activity was illegal, Branzburg promised the two individuals that he would not reveal their identities.
After the article was published, Branzburg was subpoenaed by a local grand jury and ordered to reveal the identity of his sources. Branzburg refused and cited the provisions for freedom of the press from the First Amendment of the Constitution, in his defence.