Blame the bloggers: Supreme Court says journo can’t keep sources secret

Despite the decision, squealers with something saucy to link to a reporter should still give it a shot. The red robes just reaffirmed the status quo, which says that these things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  In particular, the 8-1 decision by the court says that, as far as the constitution is concerned, reporters are on the same footing as anyone else:

The protection attaching to freedom of expression is not limited to the “traditional media,” but is enjoyed by “everyone” (in the words of s. 2(b) of the Charter) who chooses to exercise his or her freedom of expression on matters of public interest whether by blogging, tweeting, standing on a street corner and shouting the “news” at passing pedestrians or publishing in a national newspaper. To throw a constitutional immunity around the interactions of such a heterogeneous and ill-defined group...would blow a giant hole in law enforcement and other constitutionally recognized values such as privacy.

Somebody should check and then tell us anonymously whether this is the first time a Supreme Court anywhere has referenced tweeting. And then, as bloggers and tweeters, we should totally get “heterogeneous and ill-defined” T-shirts made.

• R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16 • Press can’t protect sources, Supreme Court says [Globe and Mail] • National Post loses case to protect source’s identity [Toronto Sun] • Paper must reveal sources, top court rules [Toronto Star] • Supreme Court rejects media immunity [National Post]