Worth a read - the Court's not being flippant here, and "binding case law" shows that this issue has been debated in the past. Why take away this option from the Courts when they are treating it with significant respect?
Worth a read - the Court's not being flippant here, and "binding case law" shows that this issue has been debated in the past. Why take away this option from the Courts when they are treating it with significant respect?
As that doc shows, we're not talking about flippant abuse of freedom of the press here. We're talking about a case where Chen was *cleared of charges* and then over a year later this info was leaked to Herridge - basically to smear Chen when they couldn't touch her with a legal case, given that the investigation had been dropped.
That stinks to high heaven and the Court thought hard about it, applied a standard that they say when applied results in “the civil litigant’s interest in disclosure should yield to the
journalist’s privilege” in “all but the most exceptional cases.” I.e. unless things are really rotten, the first amendment freedom of the press wins and there is no disclosure, but when they simply analyze this case, it's one of the extremely exceptional ones. Which pretty much means "not the one to make a poster child as if it were a problematic repeated issue that should result in new law".
The law is called "Protect Reporterds from Exploitative State Spying"... when it seems to be enabling deep state spying if you ask me. That's why they are all happily lining up behind it.
Worth a read - the Court's not being flippant here, and "binding case law" shows that this issue has been debated in the past. Why take away this option from the Courts when they are treating it with significant respect?
https://webservices.courthousenews.com/sites/Data/AppellateOpinionUploads/2023-02-8--13-47-52-118cv3074.pdf
As that doc shows, we're not talking about flippant abuse of freedom of the press here. We're talking about a case where Chen was *cleared of charges* and then over a year later this info was leaked to Herridge - basically to smear Chen when they couldn't touch her with a legal case, given that the investigation had been dropped.
That stinks to high heaven and the Court thought hard about it, applied a standard that they say when applied results in “the civil litigant’s interest in disclosure should yield to the
journalist’s privilege” in “all but the most exceptional cases.” I.e. unless things are really rotten, the first amendment freedom of the press wins and there is no disclosure, but when they simply analyze this case, it's one of the extremely exceptional ones. Which pretty much means "not the one to make a poster child as if it were a problematic repeated issue that should result in new law".
The law is called "Protect Reporterds from Exploitative State Spying"... when it seems to be enabling deep state spying if you ask me. That's why they are all happily lining up behind it.