I don't see what's so precedent-setting, journalists have no special protection under the Constitution and never have in Canada.

And the other thing about the Peters case is that it was a civil trial, not a criminal one - no one was in danger of going to jail, and it was not the police or the state demanding his files, it was the other party in the lawsuit.

Where's the "we're Canada, proud, free, smug and better than America" crowd?

lajimi: Where's the "we're Canada, proud, free, smug and better than America" crowd?

Eating bacon, drinking real beer, and laughing at your "free speech zones" and obsession with Britney from the comfort of our Chesterfields.

I think maybe the article writer is a bit biased because it affects him personally. I don't think "protecting the source" is necessarily the most important thing in all cases. Good on that reporter for keeping his word, though.

hockeyfarker: I think maybe the article writer is a bit biased because it affects him personally.



Bias or not, I don't trust this guy in the first place. He looks like Studman69 with a new haircut. We'll probably see him on 'To catch a predator' in a couple years.

Reporter's privelege isn't a "freedom". It's an anti-freedom that creates special categories of citizenship. It usually comes from the Euro crowd that loves to self-worship how much "freer" they are as they shutdown political publications they disagree with.

...will have repercussions for journalistic freedom and protection of reporters' confidential sources in Canada

Fixed. This is almost as important as finding out how many shoes Pedro the Paraguayan has in his closet.

Separated at birth:

FTFA: About 14 years ago, Hamilton Spectator reporter Ken Peters, who at the time was our city hall reporter, was given a brown envelope that detailed deplorable conditions at St. Elizabeth's Villa, a local nursing home. He wrote about it, the newspaper was sued and in a civil trial in 2004, the trial judge ordered Peters to give information that the journalist believed would lead to the discovery of his confidential source.

The powers that be everywhere are invested in destroying the medias ability to hold them to account. Using civil lawsuits with punitive fines to achieve their ends as in this case in order to make a reporter reveal confidential sources is just another step in the wrog direction down a lippery slope.

It's like all these whistle blower protection laws that are seen to obviously not work as intended.

Better governance requires more transparency and accountability. Increased secrecy almost always leads to bad government.

See: Cheney/Bush Cabal.

The only question that I got for this guy is why didn't he lie and claim that the information was given to him anonymously?

That's wot I woulda done.

Fark them Biatches.

Fight the Power.

/Notice how the judge in question never gets named in the article?

wrog = wrong

lajimi: Where's the "we're Canada, proud, free, smug and better than America" crowd?

Geez, dude... wait a few posts before falling over yourself to diss Canadians, eh?

Geez, dude... wait a few posts before falling over yourself to diss Canadians, eh?

Chances are he doesn't have the attention span to pull that off.

Bored Horde: lajimi: Where's the "we're Canada, proud, free, smug and better than America" crowd?

Eating bacon, drinking real beer, and laughing at your "free speech zones" and obsession with Britney from the comfort of our Chesterfields.

Speak Amurican, Frenchie.

it will set a precedent in clarifying the rules and conduct of how judges should approach cases like this, but it won't radically affect the sanctity of confidentiality.

Tucci: It's an editorial piece and so it represents the paper's opinion. And it's their guy and their paper being sued.

So yes, you're correct. So sue them.

Yeah, I know I'm correct. I wasn't asking a question. wtf