Everything online journalists need to protect their legal rights. This free resource culls from all Reporters Committee resources and includes exclusive content on digital media law issues.
Digital Journalist's Legal Guide
Search the Reporter's Privilege Compendium
The term "newsperson," as defined in the Colorado shield law, was applied by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in Quigley v. Rosenthal, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1173 (D. Colo. 1999). The Colorado statute defines newsperson as "any member of the mass media and any employee or independent contractor of a member of the mass media who is engaged to gather, receive, observe, process, prepare, write, or edit new information for dissemination to the public through mass media." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(3)(a). Mass media is defined in the statute as "any publisher of a newspaper or periodical . . ." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(1)(c). The court held that the Anti-Defamation League was a newsperson under the statute because it published numerous periodicals, books, and pamphlets and regularly engage in news gathering activities.
10th Cir.
In Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433, 436-37 (10th Cir. 1977), the court held that the First Amendment reporter's privilege extended to a film maker producing a documentary. The court reasoned that the film maker's purpose was to be an investigative reporter for the documentary. To support this view, the Tenth Circuit noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has not limited the privilege to newspaper reporters. Moreover, the press includes all kinds of publications which communicate to the public information and opinion.
10th Cir.
There is no published case law addressing this issue. In Weathers v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 17 Media L. Rptr. (BNA) 1846 (D. Kan. 1990), the First Amendment privilege (although overcome) was applied to a newspaper photographer.
10th Cir.
In Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433, 436-37 (10th Cir. 1977), the court held that the First Amendment reporter's privilege extended to a film maker producing a documentary.
10th Cir.
In Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433, 436-37 (10th Cir. 1977), the court held that the First Amendment reporter's privilege extended to a film maker producing a documentary.
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held the Anti-Defamation League was a "newsperson," because it published numerous periodicals, books, and pamphlets and regularly engage in news gathering activities. See Quigley v. Rosenthal, 43 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1173 (D. Colo. 1999). The court applied Colorado's shield law, which defines "newsperson" and "mass media," in reaching its decision. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-119(3)(a) and (1)(c).
Although it concluded that no "journalistic" privilege applied, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas applied the Silkwood balancing test to determine whether identification of confidential sources used by two non-journalists was protected by the First Amendment. See How v. City of Baxter Springs, Kansas, No. 04-2256-JWL, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8466, *18-19 (D. Kan. May 5, 2005). The plaintiffs, one of whom was self-employed, and the other a retired patent attorney, and neither of whom was a journalist by profession, filed a malicious prosecution lawsuit against defendants, the City of Baxter Springs, the City Clerk, and the City Attorney, based on criminal defamation actions filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs based on "letters to the editor" and "guest editorials" written by the plaintiffs and published in the Baxter Springs News. Defendants filed motions to compel the plaintiffs to disclose during their depositions certain confidential sources, and in response, plaintiffs filed motions for a protective order. The court observed that the claim of privilege was "unsupportable, factually or legally," because the plaintiffs were not journalists, but "[n]evertheless, out of an abundance of caution, applied the Silkwood test." Id. at *19. The court granted defendants' motions to compel and denied plaintiffs' motions, finding that the Silkwood factors weighed in favor of defendants because plaintiffs are the only source of the statements claimed to be false, and "the truth or veracity of plaintiffs' statements are relevant." Id.
10th Cir.
10th Cir.
Follow Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45(c)(2)(B). The party has 14 days to respond after service of the subpoena, or the party must respond before the time specified for compliance in the subpoena if it is less than 14 days.
10th Cir.
Connect with us:
