My readers are better than Google. Here’s handy explanation:
The logic of Fitzgerald has sound basis in the American legal system. Despite the noble work journalists sometimes do, reporters, much like any other citizen/resident, do not have carte blanche to aid in the concealment of a criminal act simply on the basis of their profession. In a case based on federal law (such as the law at issue for Fitzgerald, Cooper and Miller, one making it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent of the United States), the Federal Rules of Evidence hold that the privileges against compulsory testimony that apply are the privileges that arise under the Common Law. Examples of these are the attorney-client privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination, the priest-penitent privilege, and the marital communications privilege. The courts have refused to recognize new privileges, such as an accountant-client or reporter-source privilege, which have never been recognized under the Common Law. For historical reasons, the ultimate value to society in ferreting out the truth in a case or controversy (here, a criminal case) through the obtainment of evidence has been ajudged paramount. Note that Judge Hogan’s ruling here is based on Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the First Amendment interest asserted by the newsperson was outweighed by the general obligation of a citizen to appear before a grand jury or at trial, pursuant to a subpoena, and give what information he or she possesses.” For more information on privileges, try the handy run-down here.
Thanks. Still, it seems to me that Fitzgerald’s bald statement that no one in America can rely on confidentiality is excessive.
The Dish 