A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the First Amendment does not protect investigative journalists who receive unauthorized information from whistleblowers.

The unprecedented ruling, which demands a New York Times reporter testify against one of his anonymous sources, has effectively turned national security reporters and investigative journalists into potential whistleblowers themselves.

Per The NY Times:



In a major ruling on press freedoms, a divided federal appeals court on Friday ruled that James Risen, an author and a reporter for The New York Times, must testify in the criminal trial of a former Central Intelligence Agency official charged with providing him with classified information. In a 118-page set of opinions, two members of a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled that the First Amendment does not protect reporters who receive unauthorized leaks from being forced to testify against the people suspected of leaking to them. A district court judge who had ruled in Mr. Risen’s case had said that it did.

The chilling effect this ruling will have is twofold. First, it will be much more difficult for national security journalists to secure anonymous whistleblowers – those who have important information they want the public to know about, but who are afraid to reveal their identities, as did Edward Snowden.

Second, this chilling effect will impact the discipline of investigative journalism itself. For in order to protect a source, many journalists will now have only one option: serve prison time.

This is exactly what Risen has vowed to do:



Mr. Risen has vowed to go to prison rather than testify about his sources.

And unless this ruling is overturned upon appeal, this is exactly what journalists will have to do if they are asked to testify against a whistleblower who provided unauthorized government information: be locked away in prison.

The importance of whistleblowers just expanded exponentially, as did the dangers investigative journalists will face in breaking difficult, important stories.

This is a major blow to those First Amendment protections independent journalists have relied upon to protect not only their sources, but themselves in reporting upon highly sensitive stories.

Let's hope it's a temporary blow.

Follow @David_EHG

