Basically in 2017 a confidential source CS told the editor for Fast Company FC that some random investor Shervin Pishevar VC was arrested by London police in May 2017 for suspicion of sexual assault. VC then confirmed the arrest to FC.
FC published an article on this in late 2017 using a police report provided by CS. However the report turned out to be fabricated, and I guess London police dragged their feet on authenticating it before the FC article was published.
VC in 2019 subpoenas FC for docs related and to try to get the name of CS. FC complies mostly but doesn't give up the name of CS on principle.
Basically, VC admitted to being arrested for something, but FC received a fabricated report from CS, not the real one? Wild.
It's hard to know who is really in the right. At first glance this is VC trying to suppress press freedom, but if the report was fabricated, maybe VC is morally unblameworthy in seeking the report via the threat of legal action. Perhaps it depends on the delta between what really happened/was published/the real police report and the fabricated report.
While the original article was from 2019, there are updates from February 18th and October 3rd this year.
> VC did something and admitted to it and admitted to being arrested for it
Apparently not enough protection given that the judge has given an order for the source to be revealed.
Apparently the standard here for piercing reporter's privilege is pretty simple:
“The qualified [reporter’s] privilege can be overcome only upon a clear and specific
showing by the party seeking disclosure that the information is: (1) highly material and relevant
to its action; (2) necessary or critical to the claim; and (3) not obtainable from other sources.”
My takeaway from this is that if you think it's likely that a statement you are making to a reporter will be the central subject of a legal action (e.g. if you want to slander someone to a reporter), it is not a safe move.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the investor will prevail overall. But it does seem like the confidential source will have to defend the truthfulness of the material they provided in court. IMO, this is not an entirely unreasonable outcome.
While perhaps you could say that you don't know their name, you would be pushing the limits of believability if you were to say you remembered no identifying details about the person - what communication method(s) you used, their appearance, their aliases, email addresses or domains, etc.
Lying to a court that you recall nothing about the person who contacted you with information about a public figure is something that I'll leave for you to discuss with your lawyer.
You might want to have them discuss with you the repercussions of getting caught. Something about perjury.
TBH the fact that this is upvoted here with this misleading title makes this submission very suspect IMO. The Wikipedia article on Shervin Peshivar has more details.
>A federal judge for the Southern District of New York ruled on Oct. 3, 2020, that Fast Company senior news editor Marcus Baram must reveal his confidential source within two weeks.
Pishevar confirmed his arrest in a statement to Fast Company.
Pishevar's conduct doesn't really have anything to do with the story. The issue is about the circumstances under which a journalist can be compelled to reveal their sources, and how that will effect the incentives for other sources on other issues to come forward with (actual) information that the public should know about.