This section contains information, advice and commentary on legal issues that affect how journalists do their jobs.
This section contains information, advice and commentary on legal issues that affect how journalists do their jobs.
J-Source/ProjetJ is a publication of the Canadian Journalism Project, a venture led by the journalism programs at Ryerson University and Carleton University and supported by the post-secondary journalism programs at member institutions of J-Schools Canada/Écoles-J Canada as well as by a group of donors.
© 2021. All right reserved
July 8, 2005
Let us forget for a moment
Let us forget for a moment Judith Miller’s sad, embarassing and ultimately disgraceful role in promoting the US attack on Iraq.
Let us look instead at the twisted case before us:
Judith Miller is jailed for refusing to reveal a source who broke the law while attempting to use her to destroy a critic of the president. Miller refused to be used in this fashion, and never wrote the story.
Now when prosecutors come calling, presumably to uncover the administration’s malfeasance… should Miller talk?
Shouldn’t she?
Does the so-called need for a shield law place Miller, not above the law, but above a moral imperative to make judgements herself about the motivations, legality and ethics of those who seek to use her shield to diminish liberty?
This is not some government whistle-blower she is protecting, this is the executive branch itself, trying to silence a critic from behind the cowardly shield of annomynity.
The principles that butress a free press, it seems to me, do not absolve us from making ethical decisions about the way we wield that power.
Judith Miller is no hero.
Bill Dunphy
June 22, 2007
The Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling yesterday that underlined the obligation of municipal councils to do their business in open session, making them accessible to journalists and the public.
The ruling in the case between The City of London and RSJ Holdings Inc. dealt with a series of closed meetings held by London city council to discuss a development-related issue. At the time, The London Free Press editorialized repeatedly about secrecy at city hall and the obligation of city council to hold discussions about development issues in public session, their arguments about the protection of debate on “property” matters within closed sessions notwithstanding. The court’s decision vindicates the arguments made by the newspaper at the time.
The Supreme Court’s ruling (June 21, 2007, Docket 31300) makes clear the obligations of councils to operate openly and transparently. It’s also a win for journalists on the city hall beat.