
Canadian Supreme Court: Reporter must give RCMP material about accused terrorist - kareemm
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/11/30/vice-media-reporter-must-give-rcmp-material-about-accused-terrorist-supreme-court.html
======
gruez
>[the court] said, in this particular case involving a deliberately non-
confidential source, the “state’s interest in the investigation and
prosecution of crime outweighed the media’s right to privacy in gathering and
disseminating the news.”

seems reasonable to me. if you're talking to a reporter and don't want the
government seizing their notes, do it confidentially.

~~~
smadge
People considered terrorists by the government will not contact or speak with
journalists if they can't trust that their conversations with the journalist
will not be seen by the government. It's not a matter of "just don't go on the
record." The source presumably has built up trust in the journalist and trusts
their judgement to not compromise the source. An example that comes to mind is
Robert Fisk interviewing Osama Bin Laden in 1993. The interview was on the
record. He was even at the time a major world figure. People wanted to know
what he had to say. He would presumably been unwilling to do the interview if
he thought that the CIA would seize Frisk's notes determine his location and
assassinate him.

~~~
raverbashing
> People wanted to know what he had to say

Sure. Also applies to modern sources of controversy and "view count": flat-
earthers, anti-vaxxers, populist demagogues and other controversy generators.

I'm skeptical. How much of it is journalistic interest, how much is "wanting
page views?"

~~~
jstanley
What difference does it make?

------
code_coyote
What are the legal consequences if the records have been destroyed? And the
reporter will answer any questions, but there are no notes, files, recordings,
etc? Surely "contempt of court" isn't a life sentence?

~~~
floatingatoll
If the records are willfully destroyed by the reporter, the government could
choose to file charges that go beyond "contempt of court" — Canadian law
defines a "terrorist offence" to include, among others, accessory after the
fact. The prosecution would presumably then need to demonstrate that the
reporter knowingly hindered the prosecution of a terrorist and that this fits
the available laws. Also, destroying one's records to protect one's own
reputation as a reporter might well qualify as "for personal gain", further
worsening their chances of having a plausible defense.

(d) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact
in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in
paragraph (a), (b) or (c);

[https://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2001_41/F...](https://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2001_41/FullText.html)

~~~
larkeith
Would this apply if the reporter had destroyed the data prior to the
government request? What about in the case where such a destruction were a
condition set by the terrorist in order to proceed with the interview?

~~~
floatingatoll
Those are useful questions to consider, but as with the risks I describe,
ultimately would require a court decision.

------
miguelrochefort
That's how you any future possibility of trust.

~~~
larkeith
I think you accidentally a word.

~~~
miguelrochefort
Indeed.

