Ernest Miller's two-element proposal for journalistic privilege

When should website operators who post information they receive about business activities be able to claim either:

• A privilege not to disclose the identity of their sources?
• An immunity from civil suit or criminal penalties for disclosing information?

I'll call the first of these a "journalistic privilege" and the second "journalistic immunity." In this post I'm just going to talk about privilege, but it helps to remember that we are talking about at least two kinds of protections. Still a different kind of privilege protects publishers from prior restraint in most cases.

Ernest Miller (The Importance Of....) has an idea for an answer to those questions above. It's pretty simple. But it may be too simple, and efforts to refine it tend to lead to some of the more complicated inquiries that I think he'd prefer to leave out of the test.

Mr. Miller argues in this post for a standard that would make it very easy to obtain legal protection for disseminating information one receives from business or government insiders. On Mr. Miller's view, we should not focus on the speaker, the content of the speech, or the medium of communication. See his post for a quite articulate summary of that part of the argument. (Mr. Miller cites Linda Berger, Shielding the Unmedia: Using the Process of Journalism to Protect the Journalist's Privilege in an Infinite Universe of Publication, 39 Hous. L.R. 1371 (2003)). Mr. Miller and Prof. Berger argue for approaches where what counts is whether the speaker is "engaged in the process of journalism."

Miller and Berger argue for different standards. Prof. Berger provides a pragmatic (but still a bit fuzzy) outline of what sorts of behaviors and attributes characterize the "journalistic processes" that law should protect. Mr. Miller argues that Prof. Berger's standard should really be stripped down to just two or three elements. I'm going to focus on his argument below and leave Prof. Berger's aside, mainly because I haven't had time yet to give her article the closer reading it deserves.

Prof. Berger's article also provides a very handy historical summary of journalistic privilege (or its absence) under federal and state law. Note that she and Mr. Miller are arguing for reformulations of privilege law — that's really another way of saying "new law". I'm not "dissing" either's argument, which may be sound and valid from the perspectives of First Amendment values — specifically, the free flow of information — and jurisprudential efficacy. I'm just saying their arguments are not what the courts have been doing so far.

So how should we tell who is "engaged in the process of journalism?" Mr. Miller writes, "The 'press' and journalism boils down to two things: gather information and publish it publicly." So, he asks, "Isn't the only process we need to know about is that information was gathered and then it was publicly published (or there was intent to publicly publish)?"

If I'm reading Mr. Miller's post right, the elements of the journalistic privilege would go like this:

If

• Insider communicates information to Outsider; and
• Outsider
  • publicly publishes the information or
  • intends to publish it publicly;

• Outsider cannot be compelled by law to identify Insider.

It looks simple, but there are still some tricky parts.

For example, there's still some question what it would mean to "publish" information. Assume that any widely disseminated medium counts as publishing — including publicly accessible websites. That does away with the blogger/journalist issue. But the bigger problem word in this test is "publicly." Is it "publicly publishing" if Outsider only shares the secret information with his or her family? What if Outsider puts together a "publication" that consists of a for-profit newsletter distributed only to a trade group? Or only to certain competitors of Insider's employer? When does the further dissemination of the information become a "public" publishing?

Mr. Miller's test also has a subjective element, in that Outsider's subjective intent to publish would qualify Outsider for the privilege. Suppose we have an Outsider who has engaged in some of the more questionable practices described two paragraphs above. When Outsider gets a subpoena (because yet someone else leaked Outsider's newsletters or a copy of Outsider's private website), is it enough for Outsider to say, "I planned to release that information to the public at large next week"?

The hunt for a description of "public" smells to me like a search for the kinds of journalistic processes that we consider to be more for the benefit of the public at large than for select groups. If we go down that path, it dredges up the questions of disclosure, journalist track-records, and other scrutiny of Outsider that Mr. Miller's proposed test aimed to avoid in the first place.

Even if these questions show up difficulties in Mr. Miller's proposed test, he could quite aptly point out that it's often better to have one hard-to-apply word or element in a law than to have two, five, or ten, especially when that law is designed to protect the flow of information and public discourse. Maybe that's true, or maybe this topic is trickier than it looks so that we may have to put up with more complexity. Based on what I've read so far, I suspect Prof. Berger's approach admits of more of that complexity. On the other hand, her approach may be more difficult to apply, and she may overly favor "established media" outlets.

All that, and we haven't even reached the core policy issues, though I'm trying to illustrate some of them with the hypothetical questions I've asked in the last few paragraphs. You can find more detailed discussions elsewhere (Prof. Berger's article might be a good place to start).

Notice that Insider still gets no special protection. That's the same as in current law. If Insider's employer can identify Insider through other means, Insider is still in trouble unless some kind of "whistleblowing" law applies. Regardless of how we treat the journalist, I don't think the rules that apply to Insider should change. Except in extreme circumstances, no business should be compelled to employ someone who leaks private business information.

If you're interested in the topic and you haven't read Mr. Miller's post already, have a look at it and think about it for a while. If you're really interested in the legal background, also look at Prof. Berger's article.