Utah confidential
Text 
No Comments [ Add Comment ]U
tah's laws regarding protection of news reporters and their confidential sources have never been very solid. Despite that, courts have been generally favorable to the state's media when prosecutors or civil litigants have attempted to force a reporter to reveal the identity of his or her confidential source.
We suspect that's because most judges believe what it says in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall not abridge the freedom of the press. Even so, Utah lawmakers, as a group, have never seen fit to enact a statute that fairly balances the need to protect the media against the government's demand to know who said what to whom.
That being the case, the media and assorted allies on this issue -- including the state's attorney general -- have approached the Utah Supreme Court in an attempt to have it establish a so-called "rule of evidence" that sets clear guidelines for reporter privilege. And while a majority of the Utah Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence has proposed Utah Rules of Evidence 509, which would grant a solid privilege for reporters and the information they've published or broadcast, it leaves wide open -- via exceptions to the rule -- the material they have in the form of notes, tapes or other information to prosecutorial probing.
As many observers have noted already, the rule as drafted by the majority would almost force reporters to torch their notes simultaneously to publishing their stories if they really want to keep their promise of confidentiality.
That's why a minority draft by the Utah Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence is so important. It's "option B," or "alternative draft," removes the absolute protection offered by the majority's draft rule, and would instruct judges to strike a sensible balance -- on a case by case basis -- between the reporter's need to respect confidentiality and the court's judgment that the need for that information to be revealed for some reason trumps the reporter's privilege.
As any newspaper worth its salt, we have stated in this space previously, and will do so time and time again, that a truly free press is a necessity for an open and healthy society. Citizens need to know, for example, what is going on in government. They need to know when businesses are behaving contrary to the interests of employees or the general public. If sources -- whistleblowers, if you will -- know their anonymity cannot be guaranteed, the public's access to some information will be curtailed.
We urge Utahns -- Americans -- who believe in the reality of a free press to visit the court's Web site at www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/comments/2007/02/rules_of_evidence_2.html. Once there, you will be able to read others' opinions about the two drafts of the reporter's privilege rule. We urge you to submit your comments in support of "option B." Just make sure you do it before March 28.
Add Your Comment
