Supreme Court nixes source confidentiality in Shawinigate case

Today the Supreme Court ruled 8 – 1 that the National Post doesn’t have a blanket right to protect a journalistic source, citing the need for other rights, like the right of a publicly accused person to defend him, to supercede confidentiality. It’s not as sweeping or definitive as its ruling last December on defamation, but it makes clear that journalists can’t assume confidentiality of sources, and that future cases will be determined on a case by case basis, juggling the right to protect a source from other rights. CBC has a  nice summary, and if you’re really keen, I’ve linked to the ruling itself.

CBC, May 7 2010

Supreme Court, May 7 2010


One Response

  1. Common sense tell us all that even all News Reporters, Professional ones included now too, News Media too, can be held for slander, wrongful, malicious reporting, writings.. even any person now on the internet as well.. But still their Prosecution is not automatic the individual with the complaint now generally still do have to pay and to go to court and prove their case openly as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: